Oral
Answers to
Questions

Science, Innovation and Technology

The Secretary of State was asked—

AI in the NHS

Maggie Throup: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on increasing the use of AI in the NHS.

Saqib Bhatti: The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology closely engages with all Departments on the adoption of AI, including the Department of Health and Social Care, and we are committed to ensuring that the adoption of AI is done in an ethical, safe and responsible way. That includes using AI to improve public service outcomes and productivity in the NHS. Ahead of the AI Safety Summit last year, we announced a new AI in healthcare fund, backed by £100 million, to target areas where the rapid deployment of AI could create transformational breakthroughs.

Maggie Throup: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Without doubt, AI offers an opportunity to innovate regarding medical diagnostics. What discussions is he having with colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the next generation of clinical scientists, including radiologists and pathologists, gain the right skills to make full use of AI?

Saqib Bhatti: I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Ensuring that the UK’s life sciences sector can grow and access the variety of skills it needs to support innovation, including the adoption of AI, is a key commitment of the life sciences vision. To deliver that we are working cross-Government, including with the Department for Education and DHSC, industry and academia, to ensure that our ecosystem can deliver and attract interdisciplinary talent. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and her Department are also working to ensure that the NHS can take advantage of the opportunity that AI represents for healthcare. In addition, DSIT is actively represented on NHS England’s radiology and pathology boards, where AI and skills are regularly discussed.

Rachael Maskell: The Health and Social Care Committee’s report into the digital technologies of the future clearly demonstrated the opportunities that sit before us if we get the basics  right. AI is not only of use for increasing productivity in diagnostics, but also when setting treatment plans and in pharmacology. How is the Minister setting out a strategic plan for how AI can be invested in the NHS for the future, as Labour has done with our “Fit for the Future” plan?

Saqib Bhatti: The hon. Lady is right to say that AI can play a great role in improving the way we treat conditions, provided that it is implemented in an ethical, safe and responsible way. One great example of that is Brainomix, which is already being used in 37 NHS healthcare trusts. It means that the in/out time has been greatly reduced, and three times more people who previously would have not been able to live independently are now able to do so because of the use of AI. That is also being used in additional critical pathways, and lessons are learned. I know the NHS is working closely with DHSC to ensure that AI is used effectively.

AI: Regulation

Chris Elmore: What steps the Government is taking to regulate AI.

Justin Madders: What steps the Government is taking to regulate AI.

Nia Griffith: What steps the Government is taking to regulate AI.

Henry Smith: What steps her Department is taking to regulate artificial intelligence.

Michelle Donelan: In our White Paper on AI regulation we set out our ambitious pro-regulation, pro-innovation framework, outlining five cross-sectoral principles to be applied by existing regulators. In February we published our response, setting out how we are supporting regulators to deliver the framework and strengthen our global AI leadership. That includes new funding and guidance for our regulators, and we have established a central risk function to support.

Chris Elmore: Yet we heard just a few months ago from the Prime Minister that the UK’s answer is not to rush to regulate. The Competition and Markets Authority has been clear about the potential harms that unregulated AI could generate from baking in biases that affect certain demographics, and general purpose models that could get out of control. Why have the Government dragged their feet on safeguards for the most advanced AI models, or is the Secretary of State simply waiting for the next Labour Government to control the new AI models?

Michelle Donelan: Mr Speaker, this is absolute tosh. We have led the world when it comes to AI safety. We have set up a long-term process in the AI Safety Summit, and the next one will be in Seoul in just a few weeks. We have also set up the world’s first AI Safety Institute, which is testing both pre and post deployment. We have also been clear: we will not rush to legislate. We will grip the risks and better understand them, rather than produce out-of-date legislation as a gimmick.

Justin Madders: Tomorrow the TUC will officially launch its Bill on AI regulation and employment rights, which recognises that transparency, observability and explainability are all key elements of a fair and just workplace. What will the Government do to ensure that AI does not lead to a weakening of workers’ rights?

Michelle Donelan: We want to garnish the opportunities of AI for the British public, which include the comple- mentary aspect that it can pose for jobs, especially in teaching and medicine, by taking away some of the admin and bureaucracy. We are also very realistic that technology always changes labour market needs. In 1940, 60% of the jobs we now have did not exist. That is why we have undergone a revolution in our skills system, including the launch of the lifelong learning entitlement next year.

Nia Griffith: It is all very well the Government saying that they will take their time over this response, but the point is that the Federation of Small Businesses is saying that a regulatory framework is urgent, and Dr Rogoyski of the University of Surrey is pointing out that delay could mean the UK probably having no choice but to follow the approach of the US and Europe on AI regulation. Can the Secretary of State set out exactly what the timeframe will be for regulation?

Michelle Donelan: The hon. Member is getting confused between regulation and legislation. We already have a plethora of regulation and world-leading regulators that we are supporting. We were clear in our White Paper response that we will legislate—as will every nation around the world—but we want to get that legislation right. She commented on the US’s approach. We are working hand in glove with the US, and I signed the world’s first memorandum of understanding on AI institutes just a few weeks ago.

Henry Smith: What assessments have the Government made of the United Nation’s plans to internationally regulate artificial intelligence? What are the implications for UK sovereign security?

Michelle Donelan: The UK Government are committed to unlocking the opportunities of AI, while mitigating the risks. That requires both domestic and international action. The UK is a leading voice internationally, having hosted the AI Safety Summit, which delivered the world-first Bletchley declaration, as well as actively participating at the UN. That includes our proactive role shaping UNESCO recommendations on AI ethics.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Greg Clark: The Secretary of State knows that leading AI developers are expected imminently to release new, more sophisticated AI models. Can she confirm that our AI Safety Institute has had access to those models, as was agreed at Bletchley Park? Is it the case that the developers have made changes to their models where they have been requested by the institute?

Michelle Donelan: I know that my right hon. Friend shares my passion and enthusiasm for this topic, as well as a desire to make sure we grip the risk. Our institute is  the first in the world to be doing pre and post-deployment testing, in line with the agreement we made at Bletchley Park. I cannot get into the specifics of which models we are testing, as I am sure he will understand, as that is highly commercially sensitive information, but I can assure him and the House that where risks are found, we expect relevant action to be taken. The responsibility of developers is to ensure that their models are safe, but the Government are committed to holding them to account.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that spreading best practice in this field is perhaps the most important thing? For example, the health benefits of AI have already been mentioned, such as in the diagnosis of bowel cancer, and that is about promoting the health of the public at large. Those things need to be pushed forward with urgency. It is not enough just to try to slow things down and over-regulate.

Michelle Donelan: I absolutely agree. AI has the potential to be revolutionary, especially in areas such as healthcare. That is why at the summit we announced a £100 million pot to accelerate some of our existing healthcare missions. We are working hand in hand with the Department of Health and Social Care on this important topic.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Matt Rodda: AI is an incredible new technology, and it can help the NHS to save lives, but there are also risks, such as the danger of deepfakes. The Government have been warned about those risks, yet time and again Ministers have dithered and delayed, and the Government’s failure to act was highlighted in the Financial Times this week. Have the Government run out of ideas, or are they just scared of their own Back Benchers?

Michelle Donelan: As the hon. Member will know, we have the defending democracy taskforce, which is dedicated to this very subject and is led by the Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). We as a team are actively participating in that, and we also work with social media companies and our international counterparts. It is something that I personally put on the agenda at the summit and that I have personally discussed in forums such as the G7. The Deputy Prime Minister is also leading the way with his AI compact. There is no easy answer to this, but we are working in a conciliatory and speedy manner to ensure that we address all opportunities and answers.

Personal Data

Bob Blackman: What steps her Department is taking to help protect the personal data of individuals.

Julia Lopez: The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill before Parliament builds on the high standards that we already have for personal data protection. It strengthens and modernises the regulator so that it can enforce standards must more robustly, to protect people. We are  looking at what we can do to strengthen our cyber-resilience and data infrastructure all the time as new technology develops.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is clearly vital that the enormous amounts of personal data collected by Departments and private companies are safeguarded. I have received a number of complaints about people’s personal data being abused by companies, and indeed about public sector data being sold to companies who then use it. Just this weekend, our Greater London Authority candidate had his phone hacked and his social media destroyed. That is equally important as a demonstration of what can happen to democracy when data is abused. Will my hon. Friend take further action to safeguard people’s personal data?

Julia Lopez: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that case. I regret what has happened to the GLA candidate, which highlights some of the risks in relation to technology. That is why we have high data protection standards, but there is a range of ways in which we need to tackle this problem. We have the national cyber strategy, which is working to ensure that we can deal with the cyber-threats we face. We are taking measures to protect our data infrastructure and trying to do things to stop fraud in the national “Stop! Think Fraud” strategy, as well as new laws on security of devices, such as connected devices. We need to do a whole range of things, but we need to keep making sure that we are vigilant about the risks.

Jamie Stone: When my 91-year-old mother died, I took on her landline for purely sentimental reasons. For months and months after that, I kept getting scam calls offering all sorts of dodgy products. Does the Minister agree that the elderly almost more than anyone else must have their personal data protected?

Julia Lopez: I am sorry to hear of that experience, which I am afraid is shared by constituents across the country. That is why we have taken new measures in the data Bill to try to deal with scam calls by trying to ensure that we can see where those numbers are and take action by blocking them on bulk. I appreciate what the hon. Member said; it is something that we must tackle.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Chris Evans: We are told that this is the general election year. In other countries, we already see those who want to manipulate democracy using AI to scrape together personal details, including someone’s face and voice, allowing them to falsify candidates’ views. What the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised about the GLA candidate is pertinent. As we quickly approach the second half of the year—when we are told the Prime Minister will finally call the election—will the Government commit to ensuring that personal details are protected for candidates, voters and, above all, democracy as a matter of urgency?

Julia Lopez: We absolutely share those concerns. That is why we have a defending democracy taskforce working across every Department to look at the threats  to our democracy. We face a substantial threat, and it is one that we must all be mindful of in how we conduct ourselves as candidates. AI, fakes and the protection of data is one element of that, but I assure the House that we are taking a whole range of measures to ensure that the protection of the coming general election is robust.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Carol Monaghan: Individuals’ personal data is not safe in Tory hands. A recent article in The Guardian reported that senior Tory party officials planned to make millions from selling off their own members’ data through the “True Blue” app. If the Tory party is happy to sell off its own members’ personal data, how can the public possibly have confidence that their data is safe under the Government?

Julia Lopez: The allegations that the hon. Lady has put forward were written in The Guardian, and I have not seen them myself. I am presiding over the data Bill, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that we are trying to bring forward laws that would do such a thing.

Online Safety Act: Implementation

Vicky Ford: What steps her Department is taking to implement the Online Safety Act 2023.

Michelle Donelan: Ofcom is the independent regulator of the Online Safety Act. The Government are working with it to implement the Act as quickly as possible, including the relevant secondary legislation. Ofcom is taking a phased approach to bringing the duties into effect and is consulting on guidance and codes of practice. Offences around serious online abuse came into effect on 31 January this year.

Vicky Ford: The Online Safety Act introduced many measures to keep children safe, but given the increased concerns about children’s online safety, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to go even further and introduce a child-safe phone? That would ensure that, at a minimum, all phones intended for children are properly fitted with parental controls to stop children accessing harmful content.

Michelle Donelan: The Government produced world-leading legislation on online safety, which puts the onus on social media companies, not parents. I know that my right hon. Friend has spoken about information, which is particularly important to make it as easy as possible for parents. She raises an important about device-level controls, and I assure her that I am listening not just to Members of this House but to parents.

Alex Davies-Jones: Yesterday, the Government finally backed Labour’s calls and announced that they would make the creation of deepfake porn a criminal offence. However, it is disappointing that the Government continue to adopt an intent-based approach over one of consent in relation to these crimes. Why are Ministers prioritising a man’s right to have banter over a woman’s right to feel safe? Will the Government look at the regulation of AI apps such as Nudify and ClothOff, which are freely available, easy to use and exist only to humiliate and violate women?

Michelle Donelan: I share the hon. Member’s passion in this area, which is why we put it in the Online Safety Act with regard to the sharing of that content. We have now gone one step further, and are in the process of making it illegal to create that content in the first place.

AI: Impact on Democracy

Stuart McDonald: What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of AI on democracy.

Saqib Bhatti: The Government are clear that artificial intelligence is the defining technology of our time, with the potential to transform humanity positively. We also recognise the challenges that AI can pose. As has been said, we are working to ensure that we respond to the full range of threats to our democratic processes, including through the defending democracy taskforce. DSIT is engaging with social media platforms, civil society groups, academia and international partners to tackle the risks that AI can pose to democracy.

Stuart McDonald: In the longer term, I agree that AI has enormous potential to support participation in politics, and we should seek to harness that. But in the short term, disinformation and deepfakes, often put together by foreign actors, threaten to have the most immediate impact on democracy. What risk does the Minister believe AI poses to this year’s election in particular, and what steps is he taking to alleviate those risks?

Saqib Bhatti: Let me be very clear: the UK will not tolerate malicious cyber-activity that targets our democratic institutions. The Deputy Prime Minister has already come to this Dispatch Box and taken definitive action where that has happened. The defending democracy taskforce and Government teams are working collaboratively to ensure that we respond to threats to our democratic processes, including digitally manipulated content. The Online Safety Act will force companies to take proactive, preventive action against illegal, state-sponsored content online via the foreign interference offence, including deepfakes and other AI-generated content within the scope of the Act.

Edward Leigh: In two short sentences, will the Minister reassure us that AI will not destroy not just democracy, but the human race?

Saqib Bhatti: Two sentences, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that the Government are taking a proactive approach to AI. The defending democracy taskforce is working very hard to protect our democratic processes.

Topical Questions

Simon Jupp: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Michelle Donelan: I want the British people to be able to seize the extraordinary opportunities that AI offers, but that can happen only if we address the  risks. At Bletchley Park we kick-started a global conversation and, since then, the Bletchley effect has seen countries from around the world collaborating on the development of safe, responsible and trustworthy AI. Two weeks ago I signed an agreement with the United States to allow us to collaborate seamlessly on AI safety testing. Last week we announced the date of the second AI Safety Summit in Seoul. We also remain laser-focused on implementing the landmark Online Safety Act, which will make Britain the safest place to be online. Last month we saw the first sentencing under the cyber-flashing offences that we brought in in January.

Simon Jupp: A fast and reliable internet connection is vital for everyday life and so many local businesses. I conducted a broadband survey in East Devon, which showed that some rural parts of my constituency sadly still lag behind, such as Sidbury, Fluxton, Marsh Green and Talaton. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that broadband providers improve connections across our county?

Julia Lopez: I am glad to say that over 75% of premises in my hon. Friend’s constituency can access gigabit-capable broadband. That is up from 6% in 2019, but we want to do more, so we have included mid and east Devon in our cross-regional framework for Project Gigabit. That is currently undertaking pre-procurement market engagement. We hope to give him news very soon.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Peter Kyle: The first act of the Prime Minister was to promise a Government of professionalism and integrity, yet here we have a Secretary of State who uses her position to accuse a British scientist of being a terrorist sympathiser. She goes on to use public money to settle her libel case and then she tries to cover up just how much taxpayers’ money she has wasted. Are those the actions of someone with integrity and professionalism—yes or no?

Michelle Donelan: As the Minister responsible for UK Research and Innovation, I was alerted to a tweet by officials in my Department, which stated, “This is disturbing”
and to the comment:
“Suella Braverman urges police to crack down on Hamas support in UK”,
with no further context or wording. That was posted by a representative of an equality, diversity and inclusion board that sits under UKRI. At the time, like many others, I was indeed concerned and used the forum that the person used to alert UKRI to my concerns. This was highlighted using that medium, but on receipt of the letter, UKRI itself said that it was deeply concerned and launched an investigation.

Vicky Ford: WhatsApp can be very handy, but it can also be very dangerous. Its end-to-end encryption means that even the most vile illegal content, such as child sexual abuse, cannot be policed or prevented. Given the obvious dangers to children, does the Secretary of State agree that it is woefully irresponsible of Meta to reduce the age for using WhatsApp to 13?

Michelle Donelan: We are pro-innovation, but also pro-privacy. However, it is clearly not right for anyone to be exposed on any service to harms such as sexual abuse, extortion or grooming. Platforms must have robust processes in place to safeguard children, in line with the Online Safety Act 2023. Responsible encryption has an important role to play in protecting privacy, but it should not compromise safety, and Ofcom will take robust action when that is compromised.

Tonia Antoniazzi: At the Lords Science and Technology Committee, the Secretary of State said there had been no surveillance of academics in that case. What was the evidence, then, on which she based her decision to write to the UKRI chief executive?

Michelle Donelan: I have answered that multiple times. An official alerted me to those concerns. I then saw the tweet myself and asked the Department for further advice.

Philip Hollobone: The Kettering-based company In2tec is the only company in the world that can manufacture and completely recycle circuit board technology. The potential for it and for the UK is huge. Will the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation be kind enough please to visit In2tec in Kettering to see this groundbreaking innovation for himself?

Andrew Griffith: In2tec is indeed a great example of innovation in sustainable electronics. I am pleased that it has benefited from £250,000 in UK support. It would be my pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency in Kettering, and I believe we have a date soon.

Gregory Campbell: Following the confidence and supply agreement with the previous Government, Northern Ireland should have virtually 100% access to fibre broadband, which is a first in any of these islands. Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland and other regions in the UK should take full advantage of that broadband access to maximise employment opportunities across these islands?

Julia Lopez: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of gigabit broadband to the economy. I am very glad to say that 95% of Northern Ireland has that access—the highest percentage in the country. That is a tribute to the work done between central Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Edward Leigh: Why should people living in rural areas be second-class citizens when it comes to mobile phone coverage?

Julia Lopez: We agree; that is why we have the shared rural network programme, which is dealing with a lot of those notspot problems.

Kim Johnson: Black students studying science, technology, engineering and maths subjects are leaving education in great numbers. What is the Minister doing to identify the challenges and help the progression of black students in STEM subjects?

Andrew Griffith: The Government are absolutely committed to expanding STEM opportunities. A key way of doing that is building mathematical capabilities and helping girls and minorities to stick with maths, which is why the Prime Minister has announced our ambition to see all young people receive maths education until they are 18.

Nigel Mills: There is a high incidence of respiratory disease in Amber Valley. What more can the Government do to increase investment in research on respiratory conditions in the areas that need that research most?

Andrew Griffith: The Medical Research Council is benefiting from the highest ever level of research spending, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about what more we can do in this important area.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Selaine Saxby: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 April.

Rishi Sunak: We are joined today in the Gallery by postmasters caught up in the Horizon IT scandal. It is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our history, which is why we have introduced a Bill to quash convictions, delivered schemes to ensure swift compensation, and established an independent inquiry.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Selaine Saxby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that towns such as Barnstaple—the main transport hub in North Devon, serving hundreds of square miles—should have a fully functioning bus station? Liberal Democrat-run North Devon Council has not reopened ours since the pandemic, leaving residents out in the cold with no public facilities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as people start to feel the difference as a result of tax cuts and falling inflation, we should be making it easier for people to use the bus, come to town and support Barnstaple’s local economy? Will he join me in calling on the Lib Dems to get on with reopening the bus station?

Rishi Sunak: We know how vital bus services are for communities right across the country. That is why we are providing Devon with £17 million to deliver better bus services, and we introduced the £2 fare bus cap. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently visited my hon. Friend and saw the benefits of reopening Barnstaple bus station, and it is clear that the local Liberal Democrats should just get on and do it.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: I, too, welcome the postmasters in the Gallery, in their quest for justice.
This week we marked 35 years since the disaster at Hillsborough, and the enduring courage and determination of the families must be marked by the passing of a Hillsborough law.
We also lost Lord Richard Rosser, a lifelong member of the Labour party. He will be greatly missed, and our thoughts are with his wife Sheena and his family and friends.
I am privileged to be the proud owner of a copy of the former Prime Minister’s new book. It is a rare unsigned copy; it is the only unsigned copy. It is quite the read. She claims that the Tory party’s disastrous kamikaze Budget, which triggered chaos for millions, was the “happiest moment” of her premiership. Has the Prime Minister met anyone with a mortgage who agrees?

Rishi Sunak: All I would say is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to spend a bit less time reading that book, and a bit more time reading the Deputy Leader’s tax advice. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to get through Prime Minister’s questions.

Keir Starmer: We have a billionaire Prime Minister, and a billionaire—[Interruption.] Both of whose families have used schemes to avoid millions of pounds of tax, smearing a working-class woman. [Interruption.] The former Prime Minister has a long list of people to blame for the economic misery. Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but they made her Prime Minister, and millions of people are paying the price. She blames the Governor of the Bank of England, the Treasury, the Office for Budget Responsibility. The American President is blamed at one point. We even learn that the poor old lettuce was part of the “deep state”. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is actually much simpler than that? It was the Tories’ unfunded tax cuts—tens of billions of pounds of unfunded tax cuts—that crashed the economy and left millions paying more for their mortgages, wasn’t it?

Rishi Sunak: Everyone knows that two years ago I was not afraid to repeatedly warn about what my predecessor’s economic policies would lead to, even if it was not what people wanted to hear at the time. I was right then, but I am also right now when I say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s economic policies would be a disaster for Britain. He would send inflation up, mortgages up and taxes up, and working people would pay the price.

Keir Starmer: I appreciate the Prime Minister having the stomach to say that out loud, but everyone knows that it is the Tory party’s obsession with wild, unfunded tax cuts that crashed the economy. We know it, he knows it and his party knows it, and the whole country is living it. When is he finally going to learn the lesson from his predecessor’s mistakes and explain where the money is coming from for his own completely unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance?

Rishi Sunak: When my predecessor was running for leader, I did have—to use the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s words—the stomach to argue out loud about her economic policies. I had the conviction to say  that they were wrong—not once, but twice. He tried to make his predecessor Prime Minister, despite him opposing NATO and Trident, ignoring antisemitism and siding with our enemies. It is clear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did: he put his own interests ahead of Britain’s.

Keir Starmer: Actually, when the Prime Minister was running for leader, he explained how he was funnelling money from poor areas to pay it into richer areas. We know what his record is.
I notice the Prime Minister is not denying the £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance, but he is refusing to say where the money will come from. We have been trying for months to get to the bottom of this, so now is his chance. No more spin, no more waffle, no more diversion—I know that will be difficult. This is the choice: either he can cut the state pension or the NHS, which national insurance funds—that is route one—or he can put up income tax. Which one is it?

Rishi Sunak: We have just cut taxes by £900 for a typical worker. We have delivered the biggest tax cut for businesses since the 1980s. But while we are cutting taxes, Labour is already putting them up. In Wales, it is putting up taxes right now for small businesses. In Birmingham, it is putting up council tax by 21%. In London, the Labour Mayor has put up taxes by 70%. This is just a glimpse of what they would do if they got into power. A few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman finally admitted it to The Sun. What did he say he would do? He said, “We would put up taxes.” It is always the same: higher taxes, and working people paying the price.

Keir Starmer: No single politician has ever put tax up more times than the Prime Minister has. But hang on, he was just given the chance to rule out cutting the NHS or state pensions to pay for scrapping national insurance. I was a lawyer long enough to know when someone is avoiding the question, so I am going to give him another chance. Will he now rule out cuts to the NHS, cuts to the state pension or putting up taxes to pay for his unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance? Which is it?

Rishi Sunak: I make absolutely no apology about wanting to end the unfairness of the double taxation on work. The NHS is receiving record funding under this Conservative Government. Pensioners have just received a £900 increase under this Government. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to talk about tax, let us have a look at what Labour’s brand newly appointed tax adviser has to say. This adviser thinks that supporting pensioners is “a complete disgrace”. He believes their free TV licences are “ridiculous”. If it was not bad enough, this adviser has called for increases in income tax, national insurance and VAT. It all makes sense now—that is who the shadow Chancellor has been copying and pasting from.

Keir Starmer: This is genuinely extraordinary: two chances to rule out cuts to state pensions, cuts to the NHS, or income tax rises to fund his promise to abolish national insurance—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Holden, I want you to set a good example, not a bad one.

Keir Starmer: This really matters. The Prime Minister has had two chances to rule out cuts to the NHS, cuts to pensions or tax rises. This matters to millions of people watching who will want to know what is going to happen to their NHS and pensions—[Interruption.] It really does matter to millions of people who are watching, so I will be really generous now and give him one last chance. It is very simple and very clear. Is his £46 billion promise to abolish national insurance being paid for by cuts to the NHS, cuts to the state pension or yet another Tory tax rise?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has really got to keep up. It is this Government who have just delivered a £900 increase to the state pension. It is this Government who have already committed to the triple lock for the next Parliament. He has had six opportunities, but I do not think I heard him say that. When it comes to the NHS, you would much rather be treated in the Conservative-run NHS in England than in the Labour-run NHS in Wales. It is another week where all we have heard is political sniping. Not a word about their plans for the country. He has failed to acknowledge that since we last met, taxes have been cut by £900, the state pension has gone up, free childcare has been expanded, wages have risen for nine months in a row and just today, inflation is down again, to 3.2%. Our plan is working and the Conservatives are delivering a brighter future for Britain.

Tom Randall: Mr Speaker, you will not be surprised to learn that I very much welcome the £20 million allocated to Carlton in my constituency as part of the long-term plan for towns. I am eager to see that this money is spent according to local wishes. I know that there will be consultations following the setting up of the town board, so will my right hon. Friend join me in urging Carlton residents to take part in those forthcoming consultations to make sure that their voices are heard and to ensure that this money is spent on what the people want?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on behalf of the residents of Carlton. Our long-term plan for towns means that 75 towns across the country including Carlton will benefit from £20 million each to invest in their local area. Crucially, as he has said, it will be in the hands of local people to decide on their priorities for the place where they live. Whether it is regenerating local high streets, investing in parks and green spaces or tackling antisocial behaviour, we are levelling up across the country and he deserves enormous praise for his role in securing that investment.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party leader.

Stephen Flynn: This week, a former Prime Minister who oversaw a financial crash before being unceremoniously turfed from office told the public the truth—and I am not referring to that one, Mr Speaker. On Monday, Gordon Brown told the people of these isles that
“the forces pulling Britain apart are greater than the forces holding it together”.
Maybe the Prime Minister can find some time this afternoon to agree with just one of his predecessors?

Rishi Sunak: Where I do agree with my predecessor very strongly is that Scotland would be far stronger inside the United Kingdom.

Stephen Flynn: Gordon Brown was also correct in stating that Scottish independence is not simply off the agenda. Those remarks were echoed just yesterday by the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, who stated that it remained an unresolved issue—[Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh at her, but she went on to say:
“That can be a very dangerous place to end up in when you are not allowing people to express their wishes in a democratic manner.”
Does the Prime Minister welcome the fulsome, wholehearted and warm support of the Labour party in denying the people of Scotland the opportunity to have a say over their own future?

Rishi Sunak: We did have a democratic vote on that topic, but I would suggest to the SNP that, rather than obsessing about independence, and wasting time cracking down on free speech and trying to lock up J. K. Rowling, he should focus on what the people of Scotland care about: schools, hospitals, jobs and our new tax cuts.

Andrea Jenkyns: I abhor a two-tier policing system, and we must ensure that everyone is treated equally under the rule of law. The Labour police and crime commissioner who investigated the beergate scandal handed their police chief constable a new three-year contract while the investigation into the Labour party leader and deputy leader was ongoing. Now, two former MPs are overseeing the force due to investigate the Labour deputy leader. Does the Prime Minister agree that complete transparency throughout this investigation is of the utmost importance?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A key principle of our country is that there are the same rules for everyone. On this topic, the Labour leader should show some leadership: stop reading the legal advice; simply publish it and get a grip of the situation. It says a lot about his priorities that, with his famed legal expertise, he is more than happy to help defend Hizb ut-Tahrir but refuses to help his deputy.

Colum Eastwood: The recently published Kenova report makes it clear that the IRA was riddled with British agents from top to bottom. Those agents were involved in the abduction, torture and murder of British and Irish citizens. The British Government—successive British Governments—knew all about it and did nothing. The report also calls for an apology from the Government to those victims. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make that apology?

Rishi Sunak: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the report is an interim one. As the Secretary of State has laid out, we cannot comment on the findings until we get the final report, but we would never condone wrongdoing where there is evidence of that. I will also say, because it is not said enough, that the overwhelming majority of the police, armed forces and intelligence services served with great distinction. They defended democracy in the face of some horrendous violence, and without their service and their sacrifice, there would  have been no peace process. They helped ensure that the future of Northern Ireland will never be decided by violence but by the consent of its people.

Simon Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree—we do not agree on everything—that anyone who want to see why the Government introduced strong Mayors need look only at Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley? From saving our airport to introducing our freeport to bringing steelmaking back, Ben delivers. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the best thing is that Ben has done this without charging any mayoral tax, which his Labour opponent would need to do to fund his unfunded spending plans?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the great work of Ben Houchen. I share his concerns about the pledges of the Labour candidate—over £130 million of unfunded spending, showing that Labour cannot be trusted. We see the results in Labour-run Birmingham, with taxes going up by 20%. The story of Labour in local government is one of working people paying the price. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend and I completely agree that the people of Teesside should vote Ben Houchen and vote Conservative.

Helen Morgan: Last year, in Shropshire, 10,000 people waited for more than 24 hours in A&E. That is 10,000 people over 65 waiting on hard plastic chairs or on trolleys in our accident and emergency department. The Prime Minister tells us that he has got a plan for the NHS, but people in North Shropshire want to know how long they will have to wait for him to get on and fix the issues where we are.

Rishi Sunak: With the record funding that we are putting into the NHS, our urgent and emergency care plan is delivering more ambulances and more beds, with faster discharge through our hospitals to speed the flow, and that plan is working. Of course there is more to do, but this winter we saw ambulance and A&E waiting times improve from the year before for the first time in many years, and if we stick to the plan, we will continue to deliver improvement for the hon. Lady’s constituents and everyone else.

Gareth Johnson: In 2010, somebody earning £15,000 a year paid £1,700 in income tax. Today, somebody earning £15,000 a year pays less than £500 of tax. Does the Prime Minister agree that this has helped to create jobs, growth and self-reliance?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is quite right. Because of our plan, the economy has, after a tough few years, turned the corner. Inflation has fallen from over 11% to 3.2%, and it is forecast to return back to target in just a few months—a year ahead of expectations. That is why we have been able to cut people’s taxes. As he mentions, the tax cut is worth £900 for an average worker. That is part of our plan to end the long-term unfairness of the double taxation on work.

Sarah Olney: Four years ago, my constituent Juliana was drugged and raped by her then boyfriend. After his conviction, Juliana  was advised that reading a transcript of his trial would help her to come to terms with her experience. But when she requested that transcript, she was told that she would have to pay more than £7,000. Astonishingly, Juliana is not alone. I have heard about victims who have been quoted fees of up to £22,000 just to read trial transcripts that are part of their own story. Justice should not have a price tag. The Liberal Democrat amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill would give all victims the right to read sentencing remarks and summings-up free of charge. Julian is here in the Gallery today, and she asks whether the Prime Minister will support that amendment. Will he look her in the eye and say yes?

Rishi Sunak: I am extremely sorry to hear about Juliana’s case, and my sympathy is with her and her family. We are committed to improving victims’ access to court transcripts to help them move on and rebuild their lives. We already offer a free service to families of homicide victims, for example. That is why we have already committed to a one-year pilot to help identify the current demand and to inform our next steps. Alongside this, we are actively looking at other options to immediately reduce the costs.

James Sunderland: Bracknell Forest Council has a particular challenge with special educational needs, and I am keen to support it. I am grateful to the Government for the recent SEND review, the significant increase in resources and the bespoke safety valve programme for Bracknell, but additional school places are needed now. Will the Prime Minister please agree today to release the funding for our new SEND units at Sandhurst and Edgbarrow schools, and commit to fully funding up front our new SEND school in Crowthorne?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting how Bracknell Forest Council has worked positively with the Department for Education through the safety valve programme. As part of that agreement, the council will receive £16 million in extra funding over the next few years to provide the vital education that his constituents deserve. I am told that the Department is still reviewing capital bids for the safety valve programme, but it will be in touch with local authorities directly as soon as possible.

Daniel Zeichner: In earlier exchanges, we did not hear much of a defence from the Prime Minister of his predecessor. Could he tell the House what he considers to be her greatest achievement?

Rishi Sunak: While the Labour party was busy trying to take us back into the EU and reverse the referendum result, my predecessor was signing trade deals around the world that have seen Brexit Britain overtake the Netherlands, France and Japan to become the fourth largest exporter in the world.

Jo Gideon: My constituent Claire Massey and one of her two children almost lost their lives in a fire at her home in February 2023. Since then, Claire has been a victim of bullying by aggressive claims handlers, and of negligent  and unprofessional conduct, including violating a policy and withdrawing alternative accommodation, by the insurer Policy Expert—part of the Accredited Insurance (Europe)— and Trinity Claims. Claire has raised institutional failings with the Financial Conduct Authority, which appears toothless. She has also successfully raised individual issues with the financial ombudsman, but the delaying tactics of the insurers mean that she is no closer to a resolution. Claire is here in the Gallery today and asks whether the Prime Minister will meet her and me to look at how we can better protect consumers against bad practices in the insurance industry. Does he agree that it is time to establish on “Office of the Whistleblower”?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is an excellent campaigner on behalf of her constituent, and I extend my sympathy to Claire and her family. While I cannot comment on individual cases, as I am sure she will understand, I know that the Financial Conduct Authority has the powers it needs to take action against firms that breach its rules. Further, customers can contact the Financial Ombudsman Service, whose decisions are binding on insurers. I will immediately ensure that the relevant Minister meets my hon. Friend to look more closely at this specific issue and the case that she raises.

Alison Thewliss: Ukrainian Member of Parliament, Mykola Stefanchuk, is in the Public Gallery this afternoon. I am sure we all wish to welcome him and wish Ukraine “Slava Ukraini”. Mykola has told me that Ukraine has the people and the courage, but does not currently have the weapons and the air defence to secure her freedom. In light of the Russian attacks on Chernihiv this morning, which have killed at least 10 people and injured many more, will the Prime Minister respond to President Zelensky’s statement that this “wouldn’t have happened” if Ukraine had received sufficient air defence equipment?

Rishi Sunak: It was a pleasure to address Members of the Ukrainian Parliament when I visited Ukraine earlier this year. Indeed, it was my first foreign visit of the year; I was the first foreign leader to visit Ukraine and President Zelensky to demonstrate our strong support for the Ukrainian people at their moment of struggle against Russian aggression. We have increased the amount of support we have given to Ukraine this year— the first major country to do so—and a big part of that support concerns air defence. Where we have led in supporting Ukraine’s efforts, we will continue to do so and continue to encourage other countries around the world to step up and match our leadership, because we all want to see a future for Ukraine based on freedom from tyranny.

Nickie Aiken: On a recent visit to Pimlico, in my constituency, the Prime Minister heard directly from local people concerned about the eye-watering rise in violent crime and robbery. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the London Labour Mayor has failed to take advantage of extra Government funding to recruit more police, and that on 2 May Londoners can send him a very clear message that he has let them down?

Rishi Sunak: Sadiq Khan is failing London. While burglary is down across England, it is up in London. Violent crime is down across England, but up in London. The Labour Mayor is the only one of 43 police and crime commissioners to have missed his police recruitment target. Londoners will have the chance to speak when they cast their votes on 2 May. I hope that they kick him out because we all know they will be safer with Susan Hall.

Emma Hardy: My local community is reeling from the discovery of 35 bodies and unidentifiable cremated ashes at a local funeral home. The pain was made worse when people realised that the funeral plans they had used their life savings for were fake. Does the Prime Minister agree that in these unique and limited circumstances banks should offer discretion when deciding if chargeback applies to payment refunds?

Rishi Sunak: I express my sympathies to the families affected by the case that the hon. Lady raises. I believe the Ministry of Justice is urgently looking at the matter. I will ensure someone gets in touch with her as soon as possible.

Derek Thomas: Robotic surgery allows laparoscopic surgery to be performed with increased precision, flexibility and control. This can result in reduced patient complication rates, reduced lengths of stay in hospital and reduced hospital readmission. However, there is currently no robotic surgery provision in Cornwall. As a result, residents of Cornwall must travel to Devon for robotic procedures, a journey of more than 80 miles for those from west Cornwall and 120 miles for those from the Isles of Scilly. Will the Prime Minister commit to ringfence capital funding for Cornwall to establish a robotic surgery service, and address the health inequalities our constituents have lived with for far too long?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the potential of this innovative technology for patient care. I am delighted that more generally Cornwall is benefiting from our new hospital programme, providing a new women and children’s hospital at the Royal Cornwall Hospital, in the centre of Cornwall, which he and I discussed when I was last with him. NHS England is actively exploring opportunities to expand robotic-assisted surgery. Any decisions on funding new allocations will factor in health inequalities, such as areas with less access to robots to date. I will ensure that the current access to robotic surgery in my hon. Friend’s local community is appropriately considered by the relevant health Minister.

George Galloway: The Prime Minister told us on Monday that he was off to make a telephone call to Mr Netanyahu, to urge restraint on a Government that have killed and maimed well over 100,000 people in six months, 72% of them women and children. Will he tell us how the telephone call went? What will  he do if his advice is not taken and an unrestrained  war begins?

Rishi Sunak: I was pleased to speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who thanked the UK for its support of Israel’s security over the weekend. We discussed the situation and how Iran is isolated on the world stage. I also made the point to him that significant escalation is not in anyone’s interest and that it is a time for calm heads to prevail. I also reiterated our concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. I welcome the statements and commitments that the Israeli Government have made about significantly increasing aid into Gaza, and now we need to see those commitments delivered.

Nigel Mills: Residents in Smalley and Denby now face two huge solar farm applications. There is only a 500-metre gap between them and both sites are wholly in the green belt. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should change planning guidance to make it absolutely clear that productive farms in the green belt are not the right place for solar farms, and that the investment and the time being spent should go on sites that might be appropriate, such as car parks, brownfield land or roofs of industrial buildings, rather than wasting people’s time and causing fear?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right that, particularly at a time of increased geopolitical risk, we must protect our nation’s food security and therefore our most valuable agricultural land. We do want to see more solar, which is one of the cheapest forms of energy, but, as he said, on brownfield sites, rooftops and away from our best agricultural land. That is why our recently published national infrastructure planning rules set out the requirement for solar not to be placed on what is described as the best and most valuable versatile land where possible. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are ensuring that developers and planning authorities strike the right balance so that we can deliver what my hon. Friend wants, which is more British food grown here at home.

Catherine McKinnell: I went out recently with Chris McEwan, the mayoral candidate in Teesside. It was clear that residents are really worried about crime. Levels in Tory-run Teesside are among the highest in the country. The residential burglary rate is 52% higher than anywhere else in the country. When will the Prime Minister realise that he has lost control not only of his party, but of crime in this country?

Rishi Sunak: Mr Speaker, what a joke! We have police and crime commissioner elections across the country, and the hon. Lady really should look at the record. Under this Government, crime has been cut by 50%, and we have 20,000 more police officers. Let me give her the facts, because this is why it is so extraordinary to hear what she said. People with a Labour police and crime commissioner are more likely to be victims of burglary and twice as likely to be victims of robbery. The facts completely speak for themselves, so people should vote Conservatives for safer streets.

Andy Carter: Every month in my constituency, the Labour-run Warrington Borough Council spends nearly £4.5 million   on interest payments to cover its £1.8 billion debt. It has used borrowing to spend on an energy company that went bust, offices in Birmingham and Manchester, and even a business park that it purchased through an offshore company, presumably to avoid paying tax. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time to send in the inspectors? Warrington Borough Council has gone too far in its money-making schemes. Local councils should be focusing on delivering great services, and the way to achieve that is by voting Conservative on 2 May.

Rishi Sunak: This year, the Government announced a further £600 million in extra funding for local councils—a real-terms increase, as has been the case in every single year of this Parliament. But we all know what happens when Labour is in charge—whether it is racking up debt in Warrington, as my hon. Friend said, increasing council tax by 21% in Labour-run Birmingham, slashing services in Nottingham, or, as I have just said, higher crime on average in each Labour police and crime commissioner area. It is crystal clear that, whenever Labour is in charge, it is working people who pay the price.

Preet Kaur Gill: While 64,000 people are on the waiting list for a council house in the west midlands, families are living in hotels, cold and damp homes and mouldy flats. The Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, has built 46 social homes in eight years. Does the Prime Minister think that that is good enough?

Rishi Sunak: Andy Street is absolutely delivering for the west midlands. Unlike the Labour Mayor in London, he has delivered on all his housing targets. It is the Labour-run council in Birmingham that is imposing on the hon. Lady’s constituents and others a 21% council tax rise, and what are they getting in exchange? Six hundred job losses and cuts to services. On some streets, they are even turning off the lights. What Labour has done to Birmingham the Conservatives will never let it do to Britain.

Paul Howell: I ask the Prime Minister to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for holding further meetings with Hitachi this morning—and, indeed, with the union representatives. We were all glad to see what happened with Alstom yesterday, but it is important that we do the same to support the factories up at Hitachi in Aycliffe.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his role in championing the rail industry in the UK. As he rightly said, the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State have been actively engaged with companies to ensure that we have a robust supply chain. As my hon. Friend knows, we are investing record amounts in rail, particularly in the north, and we are pleased to see that that is being delivered.

Naseem Shah: The Prime Minister is no doubt aware of the collapse of SSB Law, and many constituents, including hundreds in my constituency, have been affected and have bills of up to hundreds of thousands. One constituent had to sell his wedding gifts, and his father had a heart attack with the stress. People are having to raid their pension pots; they are  getting bills, and bailiffs are knocking on the door. Will the Prime Minister meet me and my constituents’ representatives on the collapse of SSB Law, and make sure that the Government respond to this injustice that has happened to people across the country?

Rishi Sunak: I am sorry to hear about the situation impacting the hon. Lady’s constituents. I will be more than happy to make sure that the right Minister looks into it and that we get back to her as soon as possible.

Humanitarian Situation in Gaza

David Lammy: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

David Rutley: The deputy Foreign Secretary is regrettably unable to respond to this question in person, as he is at the World Bank spring meetings in Washington. I will respond on his behalf. Earlier this month, we passed a grim milestone: six months since Hamas’s horrific terrorist attack on Israel. The UK Government have been working with partners across the region to secure the release of hostages, including British nationals. We want to see the release of all hostages.
Palestinian civilians have spent these months suffering, with conditions worsening by the day. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire. The Iran attack and our support for Israel have not changed our focus on ensuring that Israel meets its commitments to enable at least 500 aid trucks a day to enter Gaza; to open Ashdod port for aid deliveries; to expand the Jordan land corridor; to open a crossing into northern Gaza; and to extend hours at Kerem Shalom and Nitzana. We are pushing as hard as we can to get aid to Palestinian civilians. As this House knows, we have been urging Israel at the highest levels to take immediate action on the bottlenecks holding up humanitarian relief. We have recently seen a small increase in the number of aid trucks being allowed to enter Gaza, but not all of them are full, and numbers are not yet close to reaching the levels required given the severity of the humanitarian situation that we  now see.
We will continue to press Israel to take immediate action to open Ashdod fully for humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, we recently announced new support for a life-saving aid corridor by sea to Gaza, including the deployment of a Royal Navy ship, which has now arrived in the Mediterranean and is ready to integrate with the US pier, and provide a command and control platform.
We are also committing up to £9.7 million for aid deliveries through that corridor, as well as providing logistical expertise and equipment. In recent weeks, the Royal Air Force has conducted seven airdrops along the Gazan coast, delivering more than 58 tonnes of food. The UK-Med field hospital, funded by the UK, is up and running in Gaza and has already treated more than 8,000 people, a high proportion of them children. We need to see the operating environment in Gaza improve, so that more aid gets in and can be distributed quickly, safely and effectively. Israel must ensure that the UN has the access, equipment and staff that it needs to  do that.
We were horrified by the attack on the World Central Kitchen convoy, which killed seven aid workers, including three very dedicated British nationals. Israel must do more to protect aid workers, including through guaranteed deconfliction for aid convoys and other humanitarian work to ensure that they can operate safely. The findings of Israel’s investigation must be published in full, and followed up with a wholly independent review, to ensure the utmost transparency and accountability.
Six months on, however much we might wish otherwise, the fighting has not yet come to an end. We cannot and will not stand by. The Foreign Secretary is in the region this week, pressing for further action.

David Lammy: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting me this urgent question.
Conditions in Gaza are desperate and intolerable. Famine is taking hold, sewage is pooling in the streets and the water has still not been switched back on. Almost nothing is reaching northern Gaza, where people are already dying of starvation. The healthcare system has been utterly devastated. Yesterday, leading non-governmental organisations told me about specific blocks and restrictions that they face from Israeli authorities in doing their life-saving work. Aid is sat waiting, unable to reach those in need, with some rotting where it stood. Items are removed from trucks without explanation, and doctors are reusing single-use medical equipment taken from patients who have died. Today, a UN report says that 10,000 women have been killed. That is a description of hell on earth. It cannot go on.
For months, we have demanded that aid flow without restrictions—unfettered and unimpeded—at a level that meets humanitarian need. The UN Security Council has demanded it; the International Court of Justice has ordered it. However, despite the pledges that have been made, UN figures show that more aid went in on some days in January than went in yesterday, so I have three questions for the Government.
First, can the Minster be clear that Israel is not meeting its commitments, and about what pressure the Government are applying to change that? Secondly, why have the Government not yet announced that they are restoring future funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? It is shocking that, in the face of famine, the UK is one of the last major donors yet to resume funding, without explanation. Thirdly, why are the Government seemingly softening their message to Netanyahu on Rafah? Let us be clear: 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering there have nowhere safe to go.
There can be no humanitarian operation to meet the scale of need without an immediate ceasefire now. Both sides must agree to comply. We note that it was Hamas and their leader, Sinwar, who rejected the latest ceasefire deal. Both sides must urgently agree to end this war now to prevent the further loss of innocent life, to free the hostages still cruelly held by Hamas, and to allow a surge of aid into Gaza.

David Rutley: Important points have been made. It is important to welcome Israel’s commitments to increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza, and the limited steps that have been made, but—and this is an important but—more must be done, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to realise those commitments, and we continue to urge that that happens. As I said, the Foreign Secretary is in the region, and we are working hard on those issues.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about UNRWA. The final report from Catherine Colonna is due at the end of April. We will review that and make a decision on future funding. We recognise the important role that UNRWA plays. On the wider, more strategic point about our approach, it is clear that we want to see a humanitarian pause before then pushing for the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position of the hostages is absolutely key, and is he able to report any more progress? He has explained that Hamas have not agreed to the latest proposal, but does he agree that pressure needs to be put on them by their interlocutors who are working with them to do something solid on the hostage problem, and to do it speedily?

David Rutley: As I have said, the Government continue to call for an immediate humanitarian pause to allow for the release of hostages. While we cannot provide a running commentary on negotiations, which are highly sensitive and ongoing, the UK is using all our diplomatic channels to support international negotiation efforts facilitated by Egypt, Qatar and the US.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: Under-standably, perhaps, the world’s attention has been on the shocking Iranian missile attack at the weekend, but we cannot and must not forget about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the plight of millions of innocent civilians facing a man-made famine and living with the constant threat of attack. Neither can we forget the immensely brave humanitarian aid workers, particularly the seven World Central Kitchen employees, whose status as humanitarians appears to have offered them little or no protection from the Israel Defence Forces. Despite the promises made, the United Nations has reported that this week, more than 40% of what it tried to take into Gaza was rejected. Those of us who have been to the border and seen the efforts of the Egyptian Red Crescent, and its warehouse full of rejected medical equipment, have a pretty good idea of what those items were. This is an area that has no single operational hospital.
The elephant in the room, though, is arms export licences. For how much longer is the UK going to send humanitarian aid to Gaza while simultaneously licensing weapons sales to Israel? Would not the best form of humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza be to stop supplying Israel with the weapons that will kill them?

David Rutley: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight what happened in Iran recently, and of course we must not forget the humanitarian situation on the ground in Gaza. As I highlighted in my opening remarks, we are working very hard to make sure that the aid he talked about can come through. He also talked about exports; the latest assessment carried out by the Foreign Secretary leaves our position on export licenses unchanged. That is consistent with the advice Ministers have received. We will continue to keep that position under review, but the hon. Gentleman should remember his opening point about Iran and what happened recently. I will leave it there on export controls.

Michael Ellis: Humanitarian aid getting into the Gaza strip is very important. Has my hon. Friend noticed that in the last couple of days, the White House national security spokesman said in an interview with NBC that the aid getting into Gaza has increased by a large amount in the past few days? More than 2,000 trucks have been able to get in, including about 100 trucks in the past  24 hours alone. Three bakeries have reopened in northern  Gaza in the past week, producing some 3 million pita breads daily, and food aid convoys are now continuing via the newly opened northern crossing. Of course, there is always more to do—as I have said, that is very important—but does my hon. Friend accept that there have been significant improvements, considering that this is still an active war zone?

David Rutley: I am grateful for the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend. As I said in my response to the Opposition spokesman—sorry, could he remind me of his question again?

Michael Ellis: It was about aid improving.

David Rutley: We have seen limited improvement. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it has been significant, and it has, but from a low base, and as I have set out, our aspirations are clearly a lot higher. There are a number of key areas in which we want to see further improvements, and we are working closely with Israel on that.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Sarah Champion: Airdrops, promises of harbours and promises of money to come are not even touching the sides of the problem, given its scale. People are starving to death. At the beginning of March, my Committee published a report calling on the UK Government to press for more than 500 trucks of humanitarian aid a day to be allowed into Gaza; for all the crossings to open; for the Israeli military to co-operate better with aid agencies; and for deconfliction, so that humanitarian workers can live, and also safely carry out their vital work. Despite the Foreign Secretary’s optimism about greater humanitarian flows, the average is just over 1,100 trucks a week. Why are this Government not doing more to persuade Israel to meet its responsibilities under international law and facilitate aid to the people of Gaza? How many more people have to die?

David Rutley: I understand the hon. Member’s concerns, particularly given her position as Chair of the International Development Committee, but I have highlighted already that we are pressing incredibly hard on Israel to make further progress, and there has been limited progress. The Foreign Secretary is in the region, and he continues to press this case, as does my the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is doing important work in this area as well.

Kit Malthouse: I am sorry to question the Minister again on the same theme, but he will be starting to appreciate the frustration in the House. Over the last six months, we have heard the Government beg, plead with and press Israel, and have telephone calls, meetings and conversations with it. We even had the RAF in the sky, rightly, to defend Israel from Iran. Yet it occurs to many of us that the Israeli Government care little for what we say, to the extent that Medical Aid for Palestinians reports that a famine in Gaza over the next few weeks is all but inevitable. When will we realise that saying things is making no difference, and that we have to act, not least to take  steps to enforce the judgment of the International Court of Justice? When will we actually do something concrete to save lives?

David Rutley: As I have said, we are pressing incredibly hard to make sure that we see further progress in this vital area. I have highlighted that one of the key things we are doing is committing £9.7 million for aid deliveries through the life-saving aid corridor to Gaza through the sea. That is a material step—it is action that is being taken—but clearly we will continue to put pressure on the Israelis. They have made commitments, and we want them to stand up and realise, or allow agencies to realise, those commitments.

Julie Elliott: Crossings are still not open, trucks are going in half empty, and 41% of the UN’s requests to send aid into northern Gaza are being refused by the Israeli Government. That is the reality on the ground. The Colonna report comes out this Saturday, on 20 April, not at the end of the month. When will the Government come to this House to tell us when they will reinstate funding to UNRWA, which is the only aid organisation with the infrastructure on the ground to deliver aid at scale?

David Rutley: As I have said, we will review that report. When we receive it, we will make our final decision, and we will come to Parliament to explain that decision. As I have also highlighted—and, more importantly, as the Development Minister has highlighted—we recognise the vital role that UNRWA plays.

Rehman Chishti: The Foreign Secretary was very proud to announce that the United Kingdom had set up a contact group for the middle east, which has members from Europe, the middle east and the United States. There is a key link to the humanitarian situation in Palestine and Gaza, in that all the group’s members, and the European Commission, have decided to fund UNRWA. The contact group aims to find a solution in the middle east. Why is it taking us so long to make a decision, when our European counterparts have made theirs? I also ask the Minister to ask the Foreign Secretary—I have raised this with him and the Prime Minister—to set up an international donors conference for Palestine, as we did in the case of the Friends of Syria. We need to move forward urgently, and show our leadership on this matter, as the situation is getting critical.

David Rutley: As I have said, and I will say it again, we will wait for the final Colonna report before we make a decision on UNRWA. This situation was particularly concerning, so we need that report in order to make a decision. My hon. Friend will remember that we trebled the amount of aid we provide to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Now our task is to make sure that we can do that, and find ways to get that aid in.

Layla Moran: Yesterday, Oxford doctors Nick Maynard and Deborah Harrington briefed parliamentarians very movingly on their experiences of treating people in Gaza. They impressed on us how important it was that they were kept safe, and how many of their colleagues had died.  I am sure that the Minister and the whole House will thank them for their tireless work, as well as other aid workers, and anyone who gives over their safety to save others. They also pointed out that the malnutrition that we see is making patients more vulnerable to infectious diseases. A report released by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine projected that if the situation continues as it is, there will be 74,000 excess deaths—that is, that number will die, over and beyond the number who have died by bombs, if something is not done.[Official Report, 18 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 6WC.] (Correction) Does the Minister agree that we need not only an immediate bilateral ceasefire, but rebuilding of the medical situation in Gaza now, not later, because that is what is stopping people getting the life-saving treatment that they desperately need?

David Rutley: I join the hon. Member in praising the vital work of aid workers in the most challenging of circumstances, and I highlight the courage and bravery that they demonstrate. Obviously, we want to create conditions in which they can operate more safely. She calls for a ceasefire. We call for a pause that can lead to a sustainable ceasefire. Of course, as we move to such a situation, some of the things she talked about, particularly the extra medical support, can be provided.

Flick Drummond: Access to the north of Gaza for those providing humanitarian aid is still dire, and 28 children are reported to have died of malnutrition and dehydration. UNRWA continues to be disproportionately affected by access restrictions, and it was last able to deliver food to northern Gaza at the end of January. As we have heard, other countries are restoring funding to UNRWA, including the United States, so why are we taking so long?

David Rutley: We want to see the report, and then we will make our final decision. We recognise the important role of UNRWA, and we also recognise the importance of opening a crossing in northern Gaza, as my hon. Friend highlighted in her opening point. We are pressing the Israelis to stand up to their commitments.

Richard Burgon: Yesterday, I attended a meeting of British doctors who have recently been in Gaza, and they described the systematic targeting of healthcare in Gaza. Let us be clear: that is a war crime. A UN special rapporteur recently warned, at a meeting that MPs organised, that Government Ministers and officials involved in arms exports to Israel should be absolutely clear that they could be individually criminally liable for aiding and abetting war crimes in Gaza. Will the Minister say on the record in this House, and ahead of next week’s High Court hearing, that the legal advice that the Government have received confirms that there is no such risk, and that arms sales are in line with international law?

David Rutley: After our latest assessment of our position on export licences, it remains unchanged, and is consistent with the advice that Ministers have received. We will continue to keep the position under review.

Greg Smith: As has been referenced, our close allies in the United States have commended Israel for stepping up the amount of aid getting into Gaza, but once aid trucks are on the Gazan side of the  border, Hamas have sought to hijack the trucks, and to cynically use the distribution of aid as a political weapon, as has been recognised by this Government. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the level of control that Hamas exercises over UNRWA and the distribution of aid?

David Rutley: My hon. Friend makes important points, which set out why we are waiting for the final report, as I have said repeatedly, before making a final decision. The underlying situation relating to UNRWA was very challenging, and we need to make sure that aid is used for the appropriate purposes.

Afzal Khan: The Government rightly condemn Iran for risking destabilisation in the region, and for demonstrating that it is intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard, yet we have had six months of Israel killing civilians, doctors and aid workers; destroying almost all civilian infrastructure in Gaza; cutting off water, fuel and electricity; and severely limiting the supply of aid. That is all in clear violation of international law, has destabilised the region, and has sown chaos in Israel’s own backyard, so will the Minister condemn the action of Israel, too?

David Rutley: We recognise that Israel has the right to defend itself and, as I have said, we are calling for an immediate pause in order to get aid in and the hostages out. We also recognise the destabilising action of Iran and its acolytes, and we must ensure that we push back and seek to de-escalate the whole situation.

Bob Blackman: By now there could have been a humanitarian pause and aid could be flowing into Gaza to help those poor individuals threatened with famine and war, but of course, just as the last two humanitarian pauses were breached by Hamas, Hamas refused to accept a ceasefire on the terms that have been agreed. Such a ceasefire would mean that the hostages could be coming back now, and the people of Gaza could be receiving aid. Does the Minister agree that Hamas are clearly the obstacle to peace in the middle east?

David Rutley: Clearly Hamas are an obstacle to peace. Their actions provoked terrible atrocities in Israel back in October, which we find abhorrent. Now we want to ensure that we find a way of tackling the terrible humanitarian situation, as I have described, and tackling further destabilising activity by Iran.

Hywel Williams: In reply to my written question on 15 April, the Minister said:
“We want UNRWA to give detailed undertakings about changes in personnel, policy and precedents”.
Has the Minister, or any of his colleagues, actively sought those undertakings and changes from UNRWA by contacting it directly? If so, in what state was that request last made?

David Rutley: The broader issue about UNRWA is that we are waiting for the final report and then we can make decisions. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s detailed points with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and get back to him.

Nigel Mills: Will the Minister confirm that it is inconceivable that the money we would earmark for UNRWA will not be given this year, and will he either set out what alternative agencies he thinks could do achieve the same outcomes on the ground, or confirm that we will have to give UNRWA the money anyway, in which case we might as well get on with it?

David Rutley: I have already said that UNRWA carries out important work and has a vital role, but the concerns about its activities mean that we must have this report. We then want to look at our approach and our funding in relation to that.

Rachel Hopkins: Oxfam has reported that 1.1 million people are projected to be facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity in Gaza, and children are now starving. Samantha Power, administrator for USAID, told the US Congress last week that northern Gaza is now experiencing famine. Do the Government share that assessment, and how will aid get there?

David Rutley: We continue to be very concerned about the humanitarian challenges in Gaza and, as I have highlighted, we are pressing hard and taking steps ourselves. We have increased the amount of aid that we are committing to the region, and we are focusing laser-like in seeking that Israel should step up to the commitments it has made. It has already made limited progress; we need to see more.

James Sunderland: Israel’s right to self-defence comes with clear responsibility. Gaza has become a conflict hellhole, and the delivery of more humanitarian aid from the international community, including the UN, is non-discretionary. Will the Minister please confirm that everything possible is being done with the Israeli Government to ensure that non-combatants are being supported and are not being inadvertently targeted or hit?

David Rutley: We have highlighted that with the Israeli Government, and I confirm that we are pushing incredibly heard. Not only are we increasing the amount of aid that we give to the region, but we want to ensure that it gets through. We have already deployed a number of airdrops, which have helped, but a lot more needs to be done.

Imran Hussain: As has been said, more than 33,000 people have been killed, 70% of whom are women and children. The International Court of Justice has warned of genocide, and more than a million people have been left starving while almost 2 million are displaced from their homes. Even as the Foreign Office’s own legal advice, which it continually refuses to make public, is purported to declare that the Israeli military are breaking international law, and as the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, the reality remains that nothing has changed: bombs are still falling, children are still starving, and civilians are still dying. Let me ask the Minister a simple question: does international humanitarian law mean anything anymore, when the UK and the international community continue to refuse to draw a line?

David Rutley: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion and concern about the area, and we continue to have grave concerns about humanitarian access. However, that is not sufficient to undermine our judgment that Israel is committed to complying with IHL in general.

Anum Qaisar: Israel’s military is reported to be using Lavender, an artificial intelligence system, to help choose its bombing targets in Gaza. That is machine decision making over human decision making, and it arguably sacrifices accuracy in favour of speed. The Lavender system identifies targets, which are reviewed for only 20 seconds before authorisation of a strike. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about the use of AI in combat, the concerns over error rates, and the humanitarian impact on the ground?

David Rutley: Too many civilians have been killed, and we want Israel to take greater care to limit its operations to military targets and avoid harming civilians and destroying homes. That is the message we give when we engage with the Israeli Government.

John Martin McDonnell: The situation in Gaza is having its impact on the west bank. Tragically, this week a 14-year-old Israeli child was found dead, and that set off a process of settlers rampaging across the west bank. We now know that four Palestinians have been killed and others brutally attacked, and the evidence is that IDF soldiers stood to one side and allowed that to happen. At a meeting with Israeli colleagues this morning we heard that the Israeli Government are now arresting legal and peace observers in the west bank. Will the Government make it clear to the Israeli Government that observers should be allowed to operate within the west bank and ensure that peace is maintained? May we have a detailed report on the sanctions that the Government are applying to Israeli settlements and settlers?

David Rutley: I do not know the detail of some of the earlier points the right hon. Gentleman raised, but I will welcome receiving that. My understanding and memory is that we put sanctions on two individuals. We keep this issue under constant review, because those actions and what happens in the settlements is important, given the implications that has for the west bank.

Claire Hanna: The escalation of recent days is deeply worrying, with two nuclear-armed countries exchanging ballistics, and neither with any reputation for care of civilian lives and both with agendas of their own. That escalation has occupied the headlines, but the people of Gaza continue to suffer unrelenting military attacks and starvation. The rules-based order and international law have suffered lasting damage, including by the targeting of aid workers and medics. The UK’s influence with an out-of-control Netanyahu Government has yielded little, but one of the few legal tools available is the suspension of arms export licences. When will the Government use that?

David Rutley: As I said in a previous answer, our assessment on export licences remains unchanged. We have one of the most robust export systems in the world, enshrined in law through the Export Control  Act 2022 and implemented through our strategic export licensing criteria. It is important that the hon. Lady recalls and notes not just the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but also what is happening through Iran’s destabilising activities.

Apsana Begum: Humanitarian agencies have concluded that we have passed the point of being able to avert famine in Gaza. Whatever we do now, we will be too late for those people who will have starved to death by the time aid arrives, and that is a stain on the international community. Will the Minister update the House on what specific steps the Government have taken to bring about the full implementation of resolution 2728, which was passed by the UN Security Council over three weeks ago? Pleading with, pressuring and pressing the Israeli Government is clearly not a strategy that is working, so why do the UK Government not recognise that consequences and concrete actions can start with the stopping of arms sales to Israel?

David Rutley: We are urging, we are pleading and we are doing everything that we can to make our case. We are also trebling the amount of aid to £100 million. As I have said, we are also taking action to have this lifesaving aid corridor by sea to Gaza. Those are important actions that we are taking forward.

Carla Lockhart: Having seen the drone attacks on Israel at the weekend, it is disappointing to watch the Government and the US Administration basically telling the Israelis to roll over and accept this aggression by Iran. It was, however, encouraging to see an alliance of air forces assist the Israelis to protect their people. I wonder why there is little condemnation of this aggression against Israel and little continued acknowledgement that had 7 October never happened, none of this would be happening. What are the Government doing to ensure that both Gazans and Israelis are free from Hamas and Iranian aggression respectively and can live normal lives? As we say in the UK, Israel has the right to defend itself.

David Rutley: I agree and the Government agree that Israel has the right to defend itself. As part of our approach to enabling a sustainable ceasefire to be put in place, Hamas have to be put clearly in their place. They must not have the influence they have at the moment, and their ability to fire rockets into Israel needs to be completely diminished to enable that sustainable ceasefire.

Stella Creasy: The Minister will know that his words are not cutting through. Hamas were wrong to reject the ceasefire, but what Israel does next is not inevitable. Yet the Israeli Minister for Defence on Monday evening said that Israel was waiting for aid to be delivered to Rafah and for civilians to leave, and then it would begin the military operation. He will know that there is nowhere for these people to go and there is no food elsewhere. It is an impossible choice for people. A few pitta breads will not cut it for millions of people at risk of starvation and at risk of harm from a military operation in Rafah. What can the UK do if Israel proceeds with its threat to enter Rafah?

David Rutley: As the hon. Member knows, I respect her enormously, and we have worked together on a number of issues. On her vitally important point, we want to urge restraint about this proposed military operation by the Israelis. We are also calling for restraint in response to what has happened with Iran, although notably the RAF and others were there to provide support to defend Israel from that attack. The Foreign Secretary is in Israel and the region this week to tackle these very issues and to address the points I have made.

Marsha de Cordova: On Monday, in response to my question about restoring UNRWA funding, the Prime Minister said that, along with allies, he was “reviewing the interim findings”. In subsequent responses to other Members, he said he was waiting for a final report, which is due towards the end of the month, on 20 April. Can we have a Government statement on Monday in which the Government set out a clear pathway back to restoring funding? The UK is the only major donor aside from the United States that has not restored its funding. Time is running out and lives are being lost.

David Rutley: I recognise the importance of the points that the hon. Lady makes. All I will say is what I have said previously: we are waiting for the report and then we will update Parliament on our decision. We need to review this report in detail.

George Galloway: Seventeen repetitions of “We are waiting for the report” will become the new definition of complacency. The more I listen to those on both Front Benches describing the bloody, putrid sea of misery that is Gaza, the more I am amazed that both sides continue to support the supply of British arms and military components to the country that is doing all this. No one could understand that. The Minister said how hard they were trying—personally, I believe him; he seems a sincere chap—but why is it not working? If the Government are trying so hard while scrambling their jets to defend Israel and giving arms to Israel, why will Israel not listen?

David Rutley: I say with respect that the questions I have been asked are entirely appropriate and understandable given the circumstances. I have responded as best I can from the Government’s perspective. The hon. Gentleman knows from his extensive experience that the situation on the ground is hugely complex. We are working night and day, and our officials in the FCDO are working flat out. We are providing the support we can to Israel and to help tackle the destabilisation. I understand the passion with which he asks his questions, but he should also understand that these are incredibly complex situations. We are endeavouring to do everything we can to make our case with Israel, but it is also having to think about the implications of what is happening and act after a terrible tragic attack by Hamas and the responses by Iran.

Olivia Blake: I am concerned to hear the allegations made by several organisations that the trucks going in are half-full or less, which makes the amount of aid getting into Gaza by truck a difficult statistic to use. What is the Minister doing to make sure that tonnage of aid is getting to the right  places? Clearly, the Israeli authorities seem to be not able to deliver on their duties under international law to get aid to the right places. What more can he do to put pressure on the Israeli authorities to do what is legally binding and right to do?

David Rutley: The hon. Lady makes an important point that we need to think not just about trucks, but tonnage. I will speak to the Development Minister about this particular issue and make sure that we have extra focus on it. We need the trucks, but we need the tonnage, as well. It is vital.

Gavin Newlands: It is good to finally hear those on the Labour Front Bench seemingly find their voice on this issue, after tens of thousands of deaths and months of shameful prevarication, although they are still willing to sell arms to Israel. On the UK Government’s policy on arms sales, the criteria for halting arms sales does not require a legal confirmation that a breach of international humanitarian law has occurred, but only that it might have occurred. Does the Minister not consider that the ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court of war crimes and crimes against humanity and the consideration by the International Court of Justice of potential genocide are indications that breaches of international law might have occurred? In any event, why are we so keen to sell arms to someone we have been pressing so hard to cease operations?

David Rutley: We continue to have grave concerns about the humanitarian situation on the ground, but those are not sufficient to undermine our judgment that Israel is committed to complying with international humanitarian law in general. We have already talked at length about the export licences and our controls around that. We recognise Israel has the right to defend itself.

Tahir Ali: The Belgian Foreign Minister stated that Israel was engaging in “tactics of starvation”. Last month, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland stated:
“The use of starvation as a weapon of war is a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.”
This month, Belgium’s Minister of Development and Co-operation stated that Israel’s use of hunger as a weapon of war was
“a flagrant violation of international law”.
The Israeli Defence Minister is on record as saying:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly”.
When will this Government wake up to the reality that innocent Palestinians are dying and take action to stop them dying from hunger and starvation?

David Rutley: We are working hard to get the aid in, as I have highlighted. That is critical. We are also calling out the Israeli Government, recognising that too many civilians have been killed. We want to see Israel taking greater care to limit its operations to military targets and to avoid harming civilians and destroying homes, as he has indicated.

Karen Buck: The world is astounded by the fact that we are having to rely on sea corridors and air drops for the delivery of aid when we know that the only way we will prevent starvation in the hell that is Gaza is through mass truck supply and UNRWA-assisted delivery. Will the Minister explain the Government’s assessment of whether the current supply of aid through trucks, air and sea is sufficient to prevent imminent famine?

David Rutley: We have seen limited improvements—I have highlighted that—but we want to see Israel stand up to its commitment to increase the total number of aid trucks to at least 500 a day and increase the capacity through the Jordan land corridor to 100 trucks a day. More work is clearly required, and it is important to highlight that this is not just for is; it is an international priority where we are working with our partners.

Tan Dhesi: Given the horrific scale of killing and the starvation of Palestinians, and especially children, we need an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages, and the Netanyahu Government must allow aid into Gaza unimpeded, rather than continually blocking it. There also needs to be a process of investigation, accountability and justice, whether through the ICC, the ICJ or the UN commission of inquiry, given the serious allegations of war crimes, but the UK Conservative Government do not presently find any of those routes acceptable. Will the Minister please highlight which of those accountability mechanisms they find acceptable?

David Rutley: We respect the role and independence of the ICJ, but, to the points that the hon. Member raised, our view is that Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be described as genocide. We remain clear that formal determination of genocide should be based on the final judgment by a competent court.

Deidre Brock: Will the Minister explain the rationale behind advocating a humanitarian pause in the bombing to allow medical aid, food, water and basic supplies into Gaza and then—presumably—permitting the killing to start up again? That has puzzled me for some time. Bombing civilians is a crime against humanity. Is it not time for humanity to be reasserted and for the ceasefire, which so many have called for, to start?

David Rutley: The Government’s position is that we need a pause—we need to get aid in and hostages out—and then work for the conditions for a lasting peace. We must also recognise Hamas’s role in getting to this point. In those conditions, we need to remove Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel and ensure that they are no longer in charge in Gaza.

Naseem Shah: May I say a thank you to my constituents who last weekend organised an Eid gathering for Palestinians in the north? When I was there, I met Gaza health and aid workers and heard lots of stories. One of them was about Nuzha Awad, a lady who had given birth to triplets. Her babies should have weighed about 6 lb to 8 lb each, but they weighed just 2 lb each and have not even developed their thighs because of malnutrition. According to confirmed reports,  we know that 27 children have died so far of malnutrition. We send in RAF jets to support Israel when it is attacked, yet Israel does not heed the British Government’s warnings to get humanitarian aid in. So people are rightly asking: why are our Government so weak on saving the lives of children?

David Rutley: Some of the points that the hon. Member made are tragic and heart-rending to hear. I reiterate that we want to see change and are pushing for change, and we are taking action to ensure that more aid is available. We just need to get the conditions to enable aid to come forward and through to the people who need it on the ground in Gaza.

Clive Efford: When the Israeli Government are not listening to the Minister about aid getting in, why are the Government still considering selling arms to Israel? When we are pleading with the Israeli Government so much, the Government cannot accept that situation and continue to sell those arms.

David Rutley: We are working hard with the Israeli Government on humanitarian issues, as I have highlighted. Our export controls are in place, and our approach remains unchanged. We must recognise that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Barbara Keeley: The Minister says that the Government recognise the importance of opening a northern crossing, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said earlier, almost no aid is entering northern Gaza. The situation everywhere is most desperate. Exactly what pressure are the Government applying to ensure that routes to northern Gaza become operational as soon as possible and remain open?

David Rutley: That is part of our ongoing diplomatic efforts with Israel and our like-minded partners who are committed to providing aid and getting that in. One of the key things that Israel is committed to is that northern route. The hon. Member makes that important point, and that is one of the elements that we continue to urge Israel to stand up and commit to.

Ronnie Cowan: F-35s are reducing Gaza to dust. During Pinochet’s brutal rule in Chile, the workers of Rolls-Royce in East Kilbride refused to manufacture parts for the Chilean air force and were hailed as heroes. Why would the UK Government not follow that humanitarian example and stop exporting the parts for F-35s?

David Rutley: It is because we have got one of the most robust arms export regimes in the world, and, as I have said, we need to recognise Israel’s right to defend itself. The hon. Member probably noticed what happened over the weekend with the attacks from Iran. That situation is not just important for what happens in Israel—vital though that is for those involved in Gaza—but has ripple effects that are destabilising the region, and that has global implications as well.

Ian Byrne: We were told a month ago that 1.1 million people faced catastrophic levels of food insecurity in Gaza, and that we were  reduced to air drops. The situation in northern Gaza is horrific, and it is a consequence of political choices. The World Food Programme has said that the area has been largely cut off from aid, and has recorded the highest levels of catastrophic hunger in the world. Twenty-eight innocent children are reported to have died of malnutrition and dehydration because of political choices. What meaningful, strong actions will the Government take to ensure that international law is upheld and all Palestinians have a right to food?

David Rutley: I have already highlighted the steps that we are taking as well as the commitments that Israel has made. We are asking Israel to step up to its commitments. It has made limited progress, and we want to see much further progress to help those people on the ground.

Andy McDonald: According to UNICEF, one child in Gaza is killed or injured on average every 10 minutes. Yesterday, Israeli occupying forces struck a playground in the Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza, massacring at least 11 people and injuring many more. The deputy Foreign Secretary has boasted about how proud his Government are to be supplying Israel with arms, even while it commits such crimes against humanity and has been found by the ICJ to be plausibly committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Will the Minister tell us categorically whether arms exported from Britain were used in the strike on the Maghazi refugee camp, and, for that matter, whether the three British aid workers who were killed at the beginning of the month were killed by weapons manufactured in Britain?

David Rutley: As I have already highlighted, we have strong export controls. To the important point that the hon. Member made, we have asked Israel for an assessment and an independent investigation to take place as to what happened in that situation.

Debbie Abrahams: We continue to call for the immediate release of all hostages, for an immediate ceasefire, for unhindered humanitarian aid, for adherence to international law and accountability for any breaches, and for immediate international efforts for a two-state solution. On aid and international law, between 6 and 12 April, 41% of UN co-ordinated missions to northern Gaza, where famine is under way and children are dying by the minute, were denied. The Israeli authorities’ obligation to facilitate humanitarian aid is a matter of law. It is not just about access; it must also be able to get to where it is needed.
I appreciate the difficulties in which the Minister has found himself today but, again, why are the Government so ineffective in getting support? We have had months upon months of saying that things will happen, and they never do. Why have they been so ineffective and what will they do to make sure that Israel adheres to our requests?

David Rutley: I have highlighted that there has been limited progress, but we have made some progress in our arguments with Israel, along with international partners. Now we are pressing for those other areas to be dealt with, including northern access, which is a vital priority. We are pushing hard. The Foreign Secretary is once again in the region this week to address these issues.

Matt Western: Last week, Samantha Power of the US Agency for International Development told Congress that they it was witnessing famine in northern Gaza. Let us be honest—to the wider global population, it appears that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war, whether through the supply into the country or by intimidating the workers who should be distributing it. Does the Minister share the US assessment of the situation, and will he commit to supporting and restoring the funding of UNRWA?

David Rutley: We remain concerned about the implications of targeting civilians. Too many have been killed, and we want Israel to take greater care to limit its operations to military targets. As I have said repeatedly, we await the Colonna report about the UNRWA situation, and we will examine our response.

Andrew Slaughter: Some 500 health-care workers have been killed in Gaza in the past six months. That is more than the total number of healthcare workers killed in all conflicts around the world in the previous two years. Does the Minister agree with Professor Nick Maynard, the British surgeon recently returned from Gaza, that healthcare workers are being deliberately targeted? If so, why is the UK still supplying arms to Israel?

David Rutley: I have addressed the point about arms. The hon. Gentleman’s point about protecting aid workers is important. We believe that the Israelis need to do much more to protect them. That includes the guaranteed deconfliction of aid convoys and other humanitarian workers, to ensure that they can operate safely.

Clive Betts: In answer to questions, I have heard the Minister repeatedly talk about pressure on Israel, encouraging Israel and hope that Israel will respond. When will he stand at the Dispatch Box and accept that for all the Government’s urging and encouraging, the situation is getting worse? In concrete terms, what will the Government do now to get aid through, to make sure that Israel lives up to the promises that it makes and does not deliver on? I ask the Minister not to give me an answer about the strength of our arms sales licence regime. How can it be morally right to provide arms to Israel that are being used in the killing of women and children and worsening the humanitarian crisis?

David Rutley: As I have highlighted, we have trebled the amount of aid that we are putting in to support those people. We recognise that Israel is an occupying power, so we have to urge and work with the Israelis to enable these things to happen. The important thing is that we are seeing limited progress. As I said, now we are pushing and pressing to see further progress in achieving the aims and the commitments that Israel has already set out.

Chi Onwurah: I hope the Minister remembers Hind Rajab, the six-year-old Palestinian girl who was trapped in a car with nothing but a mobile phone and her own cries for help while the paramedics were struggling to get to her. They and Hind were killed that day. An IDF investigation concluded that its forces were not present within firing range of the vehicle. A subsequent Washington Post investigation  disagreed. I raise that case not only to remember Hind but because whenever the Israel Defence Force’s actions result in increased civilian suffering or reduced humanitarian aid—as in the killing of aid workers—the Government’s response is to call on Israel to investigate itself. Is that really the only way to ensure accountability and reduce suffering?

David Rutley: On the specific point about aid workers, I highlighted that we also want an independent review. It is important that they are protected, and we need to understand the situation on the ground. The hon. Lady highlights, importantly, that we are also urging Israel to take greater care in limiting its operations and the impact they have on civilians.

Jonathan Edwards: Following the Iranian attacks over the weekend, we are one step away from the precipice of a regional war. The comments of the Foreign Secretary this afternoon following his meetings with the Israeli Government—that he believes Israel is minded to act—should worry us all. The British Government rightly emphasise the need for de-escalation, but do they recognise that de-escalation must begin in Gaza?

David Rutley: We need to de-escalate the whole situation and do everything we can to use our influence in that task. We have highlighted already what we are asking and urging Israel to do from a humanitarian perspective in terms of their stated aims to carry out further military action in Rafah. There is the wider area as well. We are working with our partners in the region and around the world to find ways to deescalate the situation more widely. It is multifaceted and really complicated, but we are finding ways to bring that influence to bear, because we do not want this to escalate any further.

Barry Gardiner: Every Member of this House knows that it was that great Conservative statesman who said that all it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to stand by and do nothing. Today the Minister, who we know is a good man, must have been embarrassed. He stood there, wrung his hands and told us that our Prime Minister has pleaded with the Israeli Prime Minister. When did the party of Edmund Burke become the party of complicity and appeasement?

David Rutley: I am not sure that the question deserves an answer. We have already highlighted cross-party that these situations are complex. We are working incredibly hard with all our partners—I think that is recognised by the Opposition Front-Bench team. It is challenging, but please let us not lower the tone in that way.

Alan Brown: Currently, 1.1 million civilians are at risk of starvation due to the Israeli aid blockade. That is clearly a breach of humanitarian law and the interim ICJ ruling. The UK Government tacitly recognise the breaches, because they are trying to bypass the Israeli blockade using the Royal Navy. The UK Government’s incoherent position is that rather than call out Israel, they are urging and pleading Israel to change tack, while still selling arms to Israel and withholding funding to UNRWA. The interim Colonna report confirms UNRWA’s neutrality. All other  major donors apart from the US have restored funding. What is making the UK Government wait for the final Colonna report before restoring funding? Are they sitting on intelligence that is somehow not available to all the other partners?

David Rutley: We have made it clear that we want to see the full report, and then we will make a decision.

Ruth Cadbury: Between 6 and 12 April, 41% of UN co-ordinated aid missions to northern Gaza were impeded or denied access. The Israeli authorities’ obligation to facilitate humanitarian support is about not just getting trucks in but getting aid to where it is needed. That is a matter of international humanitarian law. Does the Minister really think that less than 60% of aid getting in is an acceptable rate? Does that really show the Government’s diplomatic efforts to be successful?

David Rutley: We are seeing some success enabling and encouraging Israel to allow more trucks in. As I said, it is limited progress but it is progress. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done. We are working with our partners to make sure we can do that.

Carol Monaghan: Testimony from an Israeli intelligence officer reveals that IDF soldiers were authorised to kill 20 uninvolved civilians for a single Hamas operative. Israel is frequently in breach of the principle of proportionality and, frankly, UK diplomacy is not working. What will it take for the Government to admit finally that Israel is breaching international humanitarian law and to cease arms sales?

David Rutley: We have talked about this a number of times in this urgent question in our responses. [Interruption.] And I am just about to answer that particular question; thanks for the encouragement. We have grave concerns about the humanitarian access, but that is not sufficient to undermine our judgment that Israel is committed to complying with IHL in general.

James Murray: Last week, Samantha Power, the administrator of USAID, told Congress that northern Gaza is now experiencing famine and that almost no aid is entering northern Gaza. Does the Minister agree that the situation is intolerable and unacceptable? What exactly are the Government doing to make sure that it changes urgently?

David Rutley: The situation is incredibly challenging. As I have said already in answer to an earlier question, one of the commitments Israel has made is about access in the north. We continue to urge Israel to live up its commitments, so that aid can come in from the north, as well as there being more aid more generally, to help those on the ground in Gaza.

Richard Foord: Jim Henderson from Cornwall served in the Royal Marines for seven years before working in Gaza. The aid convoy he was supporting was travelling from the north. It was following the right procedures and remained on the correct route. It is understandable that the death of Jim and his fellow Brits should have seized our attention here at home and led to an investigation by the IDF, but the UN Secretary-General said a fortnight ago that the  death of all 196 aid workers killed in Gaza in the past six months should be subject to independent investigations. Does the Minister agree?

David Rutley: I have already highlighted how important it is that we urge Israel to do much more to protect aid workers. We want to make sure there is a guaranteed deconfliction of aid convoys, and we need to do other humanitarian work to help. I pay tribute to the individuals who have done heroic work, including those the hon. Gentleman highlighted. I think he will recognise that the individual he referred to is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who, as I understand it, has been working closely with the family and I am grateful to her for that.

Michael Shanks: The Minister has said on a number of occasions today how complex the humanitarian situation is on the ground. UNRWA is the aid agency with most of the logistical and organisational network to deliver in that situation. On Monday, the Prime Minister was asked a number of times about the interim report that he says the Government have received. Will the Minister commit to publishing it in full? Will the discussions he says he is having with allies on what should happen next be published, so we know what is holding back the UK and why it is the last country not to fund UNRWA?

David Rutley: The thing holding us back from signing off our approach is seeing the report. That is what we need to wait for. It is coming very, very soon and we will be responding to it in full.

Alison Thewliss: The director-general of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, has talked about the devastating destruction of Gaza’s hospitals, and the dead bodies still being removed from the ruins of Al-Shifa Hospital. Will the United Kingdom fund the WHO and other charities on the ground in Gaza to rebuild the shattered hospitals that have been destroyed under Israeli bombardment? Will he deliver the ceasefire necessary to allow that construction to happen, because it cannot happen while there are no construction materials going into Gaza?

David Rutley: The hon. Lady makes a characteristically thoughtful and important point about reconstruction. Our immediate approach now is about the pause and getting aid in. That has to be the top priority right now. Then, as we look forward, let us get the conditions in place to have a sustainable ceasefire. As part of that, we can work through how that reconstruction will take place.

Kerry McCarthy: As I said to the Prime Minister in his statement on Monday, the mother of James Kirby, one of the other aid workers who lost his life while trying to deliver aid through World Central Kitchen, is my constituent. The family want answers, and I would appreciate it if the Minister passed on that message while the Foreign Secretary is in the region. Given the attacks on healthcare workers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), as well as the attacks on people trying to deliver food aid, will he explain what the pleas for guaranteed deconfliction actually mean, because they do not seem to be working?

David Rutley: I also pay tribute, as the hon. Lady has, to James Kirby. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. The work we are doing to raise that point with Israel is important. We want to find ways to ensure that we deconflict aid convoys. I think Israel recognises that there are challenges there. It will be carrying out its own report, and a further independent review will be needed to help find ways to ensure that deconfliction is meaningful and strong.

Jim Shannon: May I first thank the Minister very much for his response to all the questions? It is clear that he has compassion and that he wants to answer in the best way, so we thank him for that. Last week I had occasion to be in Israel and visited some of the kibbutzim where innocent Jewish people were murdered, and the Nova music festival where over 1,000 young people were murdered, and met some of the families. All that was a result of Hamas terrorism on the Israeli people. Hamas is the reason we have a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. What discussions have taken place about opening wider channels to allow medical aid in and ill people out and medical interventions free from harassment and intervention from Hamas?

David Rutley: I thank the hon. Member, whom I regard as a very good friend, for his comments. He is right to highlight the role of Hamas and what they have done  to get to this situation. We are working collectively to figure out how we can best address the situations. Medical supplies are key and we will be providing them. We are providing support on shelter and have been helping with air drops. Across the House, it is clear that more needs to be done. There is frustration and I am grateful to all colleagues across the House for, on most occasions, their measured comments. I understand their concerns. I am also pleased that Members have not resorted to cheap party politics. These are incredibly difficult challenges and I am very grateful for the questions and the challenge that has been provided. It is constructive, and we will use it to help make the case to those on the ground who need to hear it.

Cherilyn Mackrory: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: Points of order come after urgent questions and statements, unless they are directly related to the UQ we have just had.

Cherilyn Mackrory: It is, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: Then I call Cherilyn Mackrory.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I apologise for not giving you forward notice of my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it relates to something that just occurred in the urgent question. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) referred to the recent death of one of my constituents without notifying me. I raise this point of order because this is an incredibly sensitive time and I have connected with the family through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office consular service, which is the right and proper thing to do. I am nervous that my constituent’s name has been taken to score points across the Chamber, when it is completely inappropriate to do so. I wonder if you could advise me on how we can avoid that in future.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I noted the exchanges to which she refers. It did occur to me, as the exchanges were taking place, that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton should have thought twice before mentioning the name—in very, very, very sensitive, sad and indeed tragic circumstances—of a constituent of another Member of Parliament. I wonder if he would like to apologise.

Richard Foord: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for her work on behalf of her constituent. It is the duty of everybody in this Chamber to work as closely as we can on sensitive casework. Clearly, she has done that. I should add that I used my point about an individual who has, unfortunately, suffered a terrible, awful circumstance to draw a parallel with the 196 aid workers who have been killed in this awful, terrible war.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for responding to the point of order from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). We must be very careful, because this is as sensitive as a subject possibly can be. There are bereaved people who will be watching our proceedings; my heart goes out to them, and I am sure that the whole House feels the same. However, I understand the hon. Lady’s point, and I think the hon. Gentleman has said that he will be more careful in future.

Afghan Refugees:  Deportation from Pakistan

Wendy Chamberlain: (Urgent Question)  To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if he will make a statement on the deportation of Afghan refugees from Pakistan to Afghanistan.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The United Kingdom has a long-standing and close relationship with Pakistan. We engage regularly with the Government of Pakistan to advance key priorities and interests, including those relating to human rights and adherence to international law. We are closely monitoring Pakistan’s policy on the deportation of Afghanistan’s citizens,  and we are working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration to ensure that Pakistan adheres to its human rights obligations with respect to those affected.
We understand that the recently elected Government of Pakistan intend to resume their programme of deportations from mid-April following a winter pause, although that has not yet been formally announced. While we respect Pakistan’s sovereign right to control its borders, the UK, alongside the international and donor community, is urging Pakistan to do so in accordance with its international obligations.
The UK has committed £18.5 million to the International Organisation for Migration in Afghanistan to support vulnerable undocumented returnees from Pakistan and Iran. As part of that work we have been engaging closely with the Government of Pakistan on these measures, and they have assured us of their support in relation  to preventing the deportation of Afghans eligible for resettlement in the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy or the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. Since the formation of the new Pakistani Cabinet, the Foreign Secretary and the British high commissioner have received assurances from Foreign Minister Dar, during discussions on 25 and 28 March respectively, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will support our relocations work.
We continue to work closely with UNHCR and the IOM to ensure that all Afghans who have been found to be eligible for resettlement in the UK under the ARAP or the ACRS—including eligible family members—have been provided with the necessary documentation to verify that, and to prevent their deportation.

Wendy Chamberlain: Saying that Afghanistan is not a safe place is something of an understatement. Nearly two thirds of the Afghan population were in need of humanitarian aid by the end of last year, and, in the words of the United Nations high commissioner,
“Human rights in Afghanistan are in a state of collapse”.
The restriction on women and girls amounts to nothing less than a gender apartheid.
Afghanistan is not a safe place for anyone, but it is particularly unsafe for the Afghans who worked alongside western forces and diplomatic efforts—for civil society advocates, for women who formerly held high-profile political or legal roles, for members of the LGBTQ  community, and for the many others who were forced to flee when the Taliban took control. Many of those who fled to Pakistan are desperately awaiting resettlement  to safe countries, including the UK. Yesterday, reports suggested that Pakistan had embarked on the deportation of Afghans back to Afghanistan, and resettlement, the hope of safety and of being reunited with families, is now at risk of being completely lost. For some of those waiting to come here the routes are open, but the process is achingly slow. Many await family reunion, which it was promised would start this spring, while others believe that they will be eligible to apply to come to safety in the UK under ACRS route 3 pathway 2, as yet unopened nearly three years after the fall of Kabul. I urge the Minister’s Home Office colleagues to act in this regard.
Pakistan’s decision to deport the migrants whom they deem to be illegal is deeply worrying. During the first round of deportations in October last year—which was the subject of an urgent question from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss)—there were news reports of Afghans eligible for resettlement here being arrested during immigration enforcement. There is every reason to believe that that will happen again, and, indeed, this round puts even more people at risk. Afghans in Pakistan are meant to hold a Pakistan-issued Afghan citizen card, but there are reports of long delays in the processing of applications leaving people undocumented through no fault of their own. More worryingly, it has been reported that the latest round of deportations will even include those carrying cards. Effectively, that puts every Afghan in Pakistan at risk, regardless of their reasons for being there.
The UK has a responsibility here, not just to those Afghans whom we promised safety but in relation to the region as a whole. We can all understand the desire to flee from persecution, but we also understand the difficulties of support systems in Pakistan in responding when those who are fleeing reach their borders. If we want to show that the UK is a global power and a global force for good, we must act. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that all individuals eligible for resettlement or reunification in the UK are able to register themselves as being legally in Pakistan, what steps is it taking to prevent the deportation of Afghans in Pakistan if they are likely to be eligible to settle in the UK, what steps is it taking with our foreign allies to encourage Pakistan to halt these repatriations, and what steps can the UK take to help Pakistan support the refugee population? People are being sent back to Afghanistan now, with all the dangers that that entails. We must act.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: It is good to have the opportunity to discuss this issue, and the hon. Lady has raised important questions, but I can repeat the assurances that we have now received from the newly elected Pakistani Government, who have themselves repeated the assurances that we received from the previous Government that all Afghans who are eligible for our various UK schemes will be exempt from deportation. There have been two instances of temporary detentions when the British high commission has intervened, and that has gone well. Since November, all Afghans eligible for resettlement in the UK have been provided with identification in the form of a letter from the British high commission, and that is being considered acceptable by the Government of Pakistan. None of those people have been detained  or deported as a result of the letter, which constitutes our assurance, through the high commission, that we are committed to ensuring that those Afghans who are eligible to come to the UK are under our umbrella of protection.

Eleanor Laing: I call James Heappey.

James Heappey: Gosh, Madam Deputy Speaker! It is five years since my last question, and it is the first time that I have ever been called first.
It seems curious that we are dealing with a question about the sovereign decision of another Government. While the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) wants to challenge Ministers on our representations to that Government, I thought it important to reflect that throughout my time “owning” the ARAP scheme in the Ministry of Defence, the Pakistani Government were extraordinarily supportive of everything we asked of them. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our high commissioner and her brilliant team at post in Islamabad, but also in making clear our continued gratitude to the Government of Pakistan for the incredible flexibility that they show in facilitating both ARAP and the ACRS?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: It is a pleasure to be able to discuss this issue in a new way with my right hon. Friend. We have been working closely on these issues within Government, and his commitment to ensuring that those eligible for these schemes have been able to come to the UK has been, without exception, incredible. Let me just add that since October last year we have been able to complete 24 chartered flights, and have relocated more than 5,500 individuals under the ongoing ARAP scheme.[Official Report, 29 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 2WC.] (Correction) I certainly pay tribute to the incredible, tireless efforts of our British high commissioner, Jane Marriott, and her wonderful team in Islamabad, who continue to work day in, day out with the Government of Pakistan, their officials and their military, and help us to ensure that we can bring those Afghans safely to the UK in due course.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Catherine West: I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on presenting the urgent question, and on her work across the House in relation to, in particular, the women who are suffering in these circumstances.
Although Afghanistan no longer occupies the headlines, all of us—on both sides of the House—know that the situation in the country is stark. Women are living under a gender apartheid, and the men and women who fought bravely for a better Afghanistan alongside British armed services are often targeted and killed by the Taliban, as has been confirmed by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Labour has always been clear that we owe many Afghans a debt of gratitude for supporting British aims in Afghanistan. The Minister mentioned the figure of 5,500, but how many people does she estimate now require protection so that they are not repatriated back across the border?
Will the Minister also answer three other brief questions for the information of the House? First, could she detail the discussions she has had with the Pakistani Government to halt or at least limit the returns to Afghanistan? Secondly, what steps is she taking to belatedly bring to safety at-risk Afghans, particularly former members of  the Afghan security force, especially now that certain members are no longer in the Government and may not be there to make the case for these vulnerable individuals? Thirdly, what steps are being taken to commit to a strategy across the board to support women and girls in Afghanistan, to give them hope that they have not been forgotten, and to recognise the important work done in these Houses of Parliament by Baroness Kennedy and others on gender apartheid?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As the hon. Lady highlights, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) has been a stalwart in making sure that those who are eligible for ARAP, and indeed the wider cohort in the ACRS, have been moving forward. We have an agreement, and the new Government of Pakistan are supporting it. Where we indicate from the high commission that people are eligible for the schemes, the Pakistani Government are comfortable with our bringing them across. As I say, the number since October illustrates the continuing repatriation of these people to the UK. There are daily discussions between the high commission and various parts of the Government of Pakistan, as required to ensure we make progress on all those issues, and we continue to bring people across.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells has been an absolute champion of making sure that those who are eligible go through the system. I can reassure her that my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who has now taken over that brief in the Ministry of Defence, will continue to ensure that as the programme rolls out, it goes at pace. I can also give the reassurance expected by those who are in Pakistan and looking to come to the UK for safety.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend knows there are people who, in the process of making their way to Pakistan from Afghanistan, became undocumented but who are none the less entitled to resettlement here, either because they helped us and our military or because of their work in the legal system. Does she agree that it is important for the Pakistani Government to continue to show enough flexibility so that when people show that they are entitled to come here and that becomes documented, they are protected during the process?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right about the importance of making sure that all those who are eligible, have applied and are being or have been processed through the scheme, and who may still be in Pakistan and have not yet made it here to the UK, have support from the team at the high commission and have letters of support, so that the Government of Pakistan know that they are within our ARAP-eligible umbrella. That will continue to be the case until such time as we have been able to bring them all to the UK.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Martin Docherty: It is only right and proper that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) has brought forward this urgent question today, so congratulations to them.
I note that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, is in her place. Her Committee’s report highlights that the Prime Minister of Pakistan has referenced the Rwanda scheme as their justification for deporting Afghans back into the hands of the Taliban. Does the Minister agree that the Afghan men and women who fought with British forces and were not brought out to safety through Operation Pitting, yet who managed to flee the Taliban and use small boats to cross the channel and get to the UK, should not be sent to Rwanda? Or is the message from the present British Government to our allies, “We’ll use you, but we’ll drop you when we’ve had our way with you”?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: We have discussed the question of Rwanda a lot in recent weeks. We consider Rwanda to be a safe country, as does the international community. I do not think it is comparable to Afghanistan, but we are continuing to ensure that all those who worked alongside British forces, have applied and are eligible for ARAP, and those who are not in the military space but who have applied and are eligible for the ACRS, are able to have protection through the letter from the high commission in Pakistan, while we look to bring them to the UK in due course. That will continue to be the case until the programme is completed.

Alexander Stafford: Of the estimated 1.7 million refugees on the border, many will be Christians or members of other minority religious sects. What safeguards are the UK Government putting in place, and what conversations are they having with the Pakistan Government, to make sure that those Christians are not returned to Afghanistan, where they will be persecuted, and that that faith can shine through?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I said in my statement earlier, we will always continue to remind the new Government of Pakistan, as we did the previous one, of their international obligations around some of these incredibly difficult issues. We have a very good relationship with the Government of Pakistan, so that is a conversation that we continue to have daily.

Naseem Shah: I am a really proud foster parent to an Afghan refugee—actually, I am now a grandmother—so I am grateful for the urgent question. I am really concerned about those who have been forcibly taken out of Pakistan, and particularly about the reports on those who were actually born in Pakistan. It smacks of a sick joke that, on one hand, we are talking about bringing Afghan refugees here, but on the other hand, tonight the Government will vote down the noble Lord Browne’s amendment to prevent Afghans who supported us and our British armed forces from being packed off to Rwanda. My question is really simple: how can we show a moral stance on the issue today, when the Government will be voting down the amendment on Afghans who are at risk?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: It is lovely to hear of that personal commitment to a refugee from the hon. Member’s family. Such stories are so important, and it is lovely to hear them brought here and championed, because that  shows that the commitment is about much more than just words. I congratulate her on becoming a granny, as it were. It is a lovely story to share.
Importantly, the hon. Lady raises the question of those who worked and served alongside our armed forces or in other areas. The two incredibly generous schemes—ARAP and the ACRS—are there precisely to provide the opportunity for those who wish to apply, and who are eligible, to come and have safe harbour in the UK. The schemes, particularly ARAP, will continue for as long as needed, and we encourage those who have not applied—though the numbers suggest that very large numbers have already applied—to do so. As I say, they are long-standing and very generous schemes, which will continue. Week in, week out, we are able to bring the incredibly brave people who served and supported our armed forces to the UK.

Mark Logan: My Afghan diaspora in Bolton takes this matter very seriously under the leadership of Dr Aziz, who I should also note is opening a new medical centre next week in Bolton. What discussions have the Government had with the Pakistani high commissioner to the UK to make sure that those who are eligible will not be adversely affected by the 15 April deadline to deport Afghans from the country, which the Pakistani Government are now working to?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is good to hear that a new medical centre is opening, which I am sure will provide important services for the whole community. As I say, our conversations with the British high commissioner in Islamabad, senior officials here and the Pakistani high commissioner based in London continue day in, day out. We have a very close relationship. Our commitment to provide letters of support for those who are in Pakistan and waiting to come to the UK because they have been found to be eligible for one of the two schemes is respected by the new Government of Pakistan, as it was by the previous one.

Joanna Cherry: As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has already mentioned, in our report on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights warned that other nations might be influenced by the way in which the United Kingdom treats its international law obligations. That was earlier this year, and we noted at that stage that the Prime Minister of Pakistan had already referred to the UK Government’s Rwanda policy in defence of his decision to deport Afghan refugees. I suggest to the Minister that this is quite a serious matter. Does she appreciate that while Pakistan’s policy might not be identical to the British Government’s Rwanda policy, the fact that the British Government have been prepared to set to one side their international treaty obligations in respect of refugees and asylum seekers acts as an encouragement to other countries that wish to do the same?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I would not compare Rwanda, which we consider to be a safe country for those who are ineligible for asylum here, to Afghanistan. Importantly, those Afghan refugees who are eligible to come here under one of our two incredibly broad and generous  schemes have that layer of protection until such time as they get here, through the high commission and the relationship that we have with the Government of Pakistan, who are very clear that they would not look to deport any of those Afghan refugees who are eligible to come to the UK.

Gary Sambrook: Can my right hon. Friend the Minister explain the assessment that has been made of the adequacy of the humanitarian assistance available to those at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: My hon. Friend raises an important point. In terms of the UK’s commitment, we continue to be one of the largest donors to Afghanistan in a number of humanitarian areas, with £130 million in aid last year. While not wishing to speak out of turn—the Development Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is not here; he has been in Paris working on an Ethiopian package—we hope to be able to invest something nearer £150 million in the coming financial year in support of those humanitarian challenges for Afghanistan.

Dan Jarvis: It is possible—indeed, likely—that some of the Afghans in Pakistan are those whose ARAP applications are currently being reassessed by the Ministry of Defence. The outgoing Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), from whom we heard just a moment ago, updated the House on this just recently, and I am due a response to a written question on the progress on this from the Ministry of Defence today. It is good to see the Minister for Defence People and Families, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), sat with the Minister but, given the urgency of this matter, can I ask the right hon. Lady to give an assurance that her Department is working very closely with his Department to ensure that the applications of any potential ARAP-entitled people in Pakistan are being reassessed as quickly as possible?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am comfortable in committing to him that he will receive the reply he hopes to have by the close of play. He is absolutely right to say that the FCDO and the MOD are working hand in glove. The teams are incredibly well joined up, and I want to give them a gentle shout-out because they worked tirelessly to make sure that everyone’s application is properly scrutinised. As I say, these schemes are very generous and we will continue to run them until such time as we are able to bring all of those eligible back to the UK for safety.

Alison Thewliss: It is absolutely ludicrous that, three years after the fall of Afghanistan, we are still talking about people that the UK Government have left behind. It is absolutely appalling and incompetent that those who supported the UK missions in Afghanistan have been so woefully neglected. Can the Minister tell me exactly how many people are waiting for the UK Government to get their act together and process their ACRS and ARAP applications?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, these are broad and generous schemes and I can update the House on them today. The figures I have in front of me show that since October last year we have been able to complete 24 charter  flights and relocate over 5,500 individuals. We will continue to work on that with our high commissioner and her team in Islamabad and the teams here, and through the Ministry of Defence and the teams in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We have an incredible team of officials working together to make sure that we bring all those who are eligible back to the UK.

Debbie Abrahams: While I acknowledge the role that Pakistan has played in hosting Afghans after Operation Pitting, we need to recognise that many of the people being returned from Pakistan will be at significant risk. On top of that, many Afghans were incorrectly advised about which scheme to apply for and, as a consequence, may not even be in the process, so in addition to those who have started the process, there will be another cohort who have not started it because of the poor advice that they were given. Given that the ACRS is not even open—there is no phase 4 open at this moment—what numbers of people are expected? I have a constituent for whom this is really important. Can the Minister tell us the number of people she is expecting who are not in the process and who need to be accommodated?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, the ARAP programme is very generous, and it remains open—

Debbie Abrahams: And the ACRS?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: On the ACRS, obviously the first part has been running, and we will continue to run these schemes as we need to. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is welcome to write to me if she has a specific constituent connection that she wishes to raise, and I will be happy to look at that, but the schemes continue to work, and our teams are working day in, day out, to make sure that those who are eligible are able to get to the UK.

Matt Western: I have already raised the issue of the special forces and those who might now be stuck in Pakistan, but there is also   the matter of those working in local government who may have been magistrates and others. Afghan family members in my constituency suggest that the way that this has been handled could cause long-term reputational damage to the UK. What is the Minister’s assessment?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that the review of further potential eligible applicants is ongoing by the Ministry of Defence, and as decisions on eligibility are made, they will of course have the support of those who are already in the scheme and eligible to come to the UK. I am very proud of this broad and generous scheme, and I have no doubt that it will continue to run for some time while we bring many of these refugees to the UK.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister, as always, for her responses. What steps will the Government take, not only to provide safe passage and routes for Afghans and allies to reach the UK, but to provide them with safe legal status? I give the example of the case of one of my constituents, who served in Afghanistan in the Army. Alongside him served an Afghani. That Afghani had to leave Afghanistan with his family and flee to Pakistan. I met him in Pakistan almost three years ago. The point I want to make is that if we can get that gentleman and his family—his wife and four children—to the Strangford constituency, we will get him a job and house, and we will make sure that his children are educated. He needs a visa to ensure that he gets here, and if the Minister can process his application correctly, the good people of Strangford will do the rest.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I have absolute confidence that the communities of Strangford will wrap their arms around those refugees who come to the UK, and if there is a particular issue, the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to write to me. The British high commission in Islamabad is working constantly with those there who are eligible to do that paperwork. Their number is quite extensive; there are a lot of them. If there is a particular case that he would like to raise with me, I would be happy to discuss it.

Fireworks (Noise Limits)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Judith Cummins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the maximum noise levels of fireworks which may be sold to the public; and for connected purposes.
My Bill aims to tackle the antisocial use of fireworks, and would mean that fireworks available to the general public no longer emitted sound levels that were equivalent to a pneumatic drill or a chainsaw; instead, sound levels would be capped at those equivalent to an alarm clock or a hairdryer. Fireworks can be a great source of entertainment, but they cause misery for many people and their pets right across this country. This Bill would stop shops selling loud fireworks to the general public, and so tackle this widespread problem.
In my constituency of Bradford South, the misuse of fireworks is a 24/7, round-the-clock blight, causing unacceptable stress and anxiety to people and their pets. I take this opportunity to highlight my petition on this subject, which is live on my website. It calls for a reduction in the decibel limit for fireworks, and has already been signed by so many of my constituents.
Time and again, people in Bradford South tell me that their family life is disrupted as their children and pets are rudely awakened by the excessive noise of fireworks after 11 pm. In some cases, that happens every single night. Letting off fireworks after 11 pm on a non-designated day is of course illegal, but as Members right across this House will know, the policing and enforcement of fireworks legislation is, to put it mildly, a challenge. However, we can stop this antisocial behaviour involving fireworks by preventing people from buying excessively noisy fireworks from shops.
This Bill holds the power to protect people from noise disturbance without impacting the enjoyment of those who want to use fireworks. I emphasise that professionals could still continue to use fireworks that exceed the 90 dB limit, so organised public displays would not be affected. I am certainly not seeking to prevent people from enjoying fireworks responsibly.
Of course, the antisocial use of fireworks is not just a Bradford problem but a nationwide problem. The Petitions Committee noted in 2019 that thousands of people across the country had raised the issue of antisocial behaviour associated with fireworks. The Committee recognised that many people felt that current laws were unenforceable and that complaints were not acted on. Local authority and police witnesses confirmed that current legislation is challenging to enforce.
Fireworks are regulated in England under the Fireworks Act 2003, which was introduced by my predecessor, and under the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 and the Explosives Regulations 2014. There are four categories of fireworks. Category 4 fireworks present a high hazard risk, and can be supplied only to those with specialist knowledge, but members of the public can purchase category 1, 2 and 3 fireworks. Category 3 fireworks present a low-to-medium hazard risk, and are intended for outdoor use.
In the current legislation, the noise of fireworks that can be bought in shops must not exceed 120 dB, as measured by an appropriate method at the determined safety distance. However, that legislation is simply out of date and ineffective. With the public, police, and local authorities complaining of the inadequacy of those measures, it is time to change the law, stop the noise, and reduce the maximum decibel limit for publicly available fireworks.
The dangerous and antisocial use of noisy fireworks can have a serious effect on people’s health and cause distress. One constituent described to me how the fireworks cause her window panes to shake,
“4 times a week, week after week”.
We are talking about a persistent noise nuisance that people are unable to plan for, causing severe disturbance to pets and to people’s everyday life.
The antisocial use of fireworks can be distressing for those with health conditions and disabilities. Parents giving evidence to a parliamentary Committee spoke of their experiences in caring for their children. One parent said:
“our son has severe complex needs including epilepsy, which can cause him to stop breathing…the public are able to set fireworks off at any time…we cannot guarantee how loud they are going to be…My son screams, has a seizure and has to be administered oxygen.”
One of my constituents in Bradford has spoken to me about the impact on people with anxiety, including her mother. Another spoke of local ex-servicemen suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder who are constantly affected by loud, explosive fireworks. As one constituent told me:
“It’s a disgrace that animals and humans have to suffer this”.
This issue must be dealt with. The very first step must be to introduce new limitations on the noise levels of publicly available fireworks.
The proposal to limit those noise levels to 90 dB or less is supported by leading animal charities; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals endorses my Bill and says:
“We believe that by introducing measures like this, we can better prioritise the safety and well-being of animals and vulnerable people...we urge Parliamentarians across the House to work with Judith on these welcome proposals.”
The current limit of 120 dB was based on studies on the effect of noise on people, rather than animals. Loud and high-pitched noises can adversely affect a large proportion of animals, whose hearing is often much more sensitive than a human’s. According to the RSPCA, around two thirds of animals are distressed by at-home firework displays. One of my constituents described the harmful impact of fireworks on her pet:
“my dog shakes at the sound of the fireworks...when we try to cuddle and calm her down nothing works...I’ve even been to the door shouting ‘please stop’.”
This shows the desperation of animal lovers. Another one told me:
“My brother’s dog died recently of a suspected heart attack...as he lay quivering under his bed, terrified of fireworks.”
It is absolutely vital that animals and pets are considered alongside human needs.
The Bill would alter the legislation to ensure that the upper noise limit of publicly available fireworks is set at 90 dB. This modest but necessary change to the law would be life-changing for so many people and animals right across this country. This is a Bill for those who  fear the excessive noise of fireworks, a Bill for people whose pets are left terrified by the noise of fireworks, a Bill that would end the broken sleep of children, and a Bill for those who want to end the misery that noisy fireworks bring.
It is time that this House acted to defend people across this country from the harmful impact of the illegal use of noisy fireworks. The Bill tackles the issue in a practical and workable way. It will take pressure off overstretched and under-resourced police and law enforcement agencies by eliminating the availability of noisy fireworks. Importantly, the Bill also allows people to still enjoy fireworks—just in a way that means that other people and animals will not be disturbed. It aims to end the misery caused to people and their pets through the illegal and antisocial use of fireworks at all hours of the day and night, day in, day out, week after week. It puts an end to this relentless bombardment, because people should not have to put up with this. The Bill provides this place with the opportunity to act.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Judith Cummins, Kirsten Oswald, Marco Longhi, Mr Clive Betts, Peter Dowd, Rachael Maskell, Naz Shah and Imran Hussain present the Bill.
Judith Cummins accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April, and to be printed (Bill 200).

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Eleanor Laing: I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 1 - Introduction

Michael Tomlinson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1D.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 3E, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6D, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10D, and Government motion to disagree.

Michael Tomlinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, here we are again—you were in the Chair the last time we considered this Bill. This House has now voted several times, including in our strong endorsement of the Bill on Second and Third Readings. We need to bring this process to a conclusion to get the Bill on to the statute book and to get the flights off the ground as soon as possible.
Lords amendment 1D says we should have “due regard for” the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but why stop there? Why not the Equality Act 2010, the Data Protection Act 2018 or any other Act? Why not list the whole statute book? The answer is because it is not necessary. Together, the treaty, the Bill and the evidence demonstrate that Rwanda is safe for relocated individuals and that the Government’s approach is tough but fair, is lawful, has justification and seeks to uphold our international obligations.
As I set out in our earlier debates, the Government respect the Supreme Court’s decision, and it was precisely to address the Supreme Court’s concerns that we brought forward the treaty with the Republic of Rwanda. We have also prepared an evidence pack on what has changed and how those concerns are being addressed.

Debbie Abrahams: I am struck by how reasonable Lord Hope’s amendment seems in setting up an independent body to assert that Rwanda is a safe place, as the Minister says. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Michael Tomlinson: I will address that amendment in a few minutes, but there already is an independent body: the monitoring committee is part of the treaty. I am not speaking to that amendment at the moment, but I hope to allay some of the hon. Lady’s concerns in a few minutes’ time and then to see her in the voting Lobby.
Having considered the lengthy and extensive exchanges throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government now invite Parliament to agree with our assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have indeed been properly addressed and to enact the Bill accordingly.

Jim Shannon: My party will support the Government, with the exception of one amendment. I have previously asked the Minister about freedom of religion or belief. We have that freedom in the United Kingdom, but some disquiet has been expressed to me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, about that freedom in Rwanda. People have repeatedly asked me this question, which I sincerely and graciously ask the Minister to answer. Is there the same freedom of religion or belief in Rwanda as we have in the United Kingdom?

Michael Tomlinson: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that any two countries’ systems are the same. As I have previously said, those freedoms are in Rwanda’s constitution. He has previously asked me that question, and I have read out the precise wording. I endeavour to do so again before the end of this debate.

John Redwood: Many people share the Government’s ambition to stop the boats. Would these Lords amendments not muddle the legislation in a way that, once again, would leave us open to an unnecessary court challenge? Can he reassure us that, unamended, the Bill will do the job?

Michael Tomlinson: I know my right hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the Bill since the outset, and he is right. The amendments fall into two categories: those that are simply unnecessary and those that are worse than unnecessary. The second group are wrecking amendments deliberately designed to prevent the very things that the Bill was designed to do—namely, stopping the boats and getting the planes off the ground.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has previously accused me of repeating myself from time to time—heaven forfend—but he is right, because our approach is justified as a matter of parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional propriety. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) has even said that it is not unprecedented, and he is right. It also meets our international obligations.

Bill Cash: I reciprocate the Minister’s comment because, in so far as I may have rather infelicitously suggested that he has repeated himself, I have to confess that I, too, have repeated myself. [Hon. Members: “No!] Yes, and I have done so for extremely good reasons.
My amendment, which I will not go into now, received huge support in this House but was not accepted by the Government. It still presents a serious question that has to be answered. Going back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, there will come a time when this Bill is passed, hopefully in the immediate future, after which it will receive Royal Assent. At that very moment, as sure as anything, a claim will be made straightaway by Matrix Chambers, or by one of the other doughty chambers or  whoever. The question will then be what the Supreme Court is going to do about it. That is the subject to which I keep returning.
As the Minister knows only too well, when we said that we were concerned that the Bill will not work, it was not because we did not want it to work; it was the exact opposite. We want it to work, but given that the Opposition are still going on about international law, we need to be sure that the wording is clear and unambiguous so that the Court rules in the Government’s favour. If not, it is all over.

Michael Tomlinson: Once again, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has a tendency to repeat himself from time to time, as he admits, but he is right to do so. He has previously mentioned paragraph 144 of the Supreme Court’s judgment, which I can cite in full:
“in any event, the principle of legality does not permit a court to disregard an unambiguous expression of Parliament’s intention such as that with which we are concerned in the present case.”
It has been our joint endeavour to ensure that this legislation is clear and unambiguous.
On the treaty’s implementation, I reiterate that clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and that the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all the necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.
The monitoring committee, as I told the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification and response to any issues. This enhanced phase will ensure that comprehensive monitoring and reporting takes place in real time.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the Minister ensure that the report is laid before Parliament so that we can review it?

Michael Tomlinson: The monitoring committee’s work is independent. Commitments have already been made that there will be an update in Parliament, which is one of the amendments in lieu that we agreed to last time. Today, the right thing to do is to push back on all these amendments, which are either unnecessary or wrecking.

Bob Neill: I appreciate the tone and manner in which the Minister is approaching this difficult issue, but can he help on one matter? I understand his point that some amendments might have the effect of delaying the Bill, or might give rise to challenges and delay the policy objective, but I am troubled about why that should be thought to apply to Lords amendment 3E, proposed by Lord Hope of Craighead, who is a distinguished jurist and whose amendment is proposed in moderate and unpartisan terms. The rub of what will happen going forward is whether or not Rwanda is safe. Parliament can legislate, as a matter of sovereignty, to say that it is safe, but for the legislation to be effective we have to deal with the fact that we have chosen to make ourselves judges of fact, but facts may change. Given that we have put in place the mechanism, with the monitoring committee  and enhanced arrangements, which are all to the Government’s credit, I struggle to see what is in the Hope amendment that undermines the operationality of the Bill, rather than helping it. If facts did change, would it not be helpful to have such a mechanism to enable us to review that, on an informed basis?

Michael Tomlinson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his engagement in the Chamber during previous debates and outside the Chamber. I hope over the next few minutes to persuade him as to why this specific amendment is in fact unnecessary. I share his respect for the noble Lord Hope, as should we all, but I respectfully disagree with him that this amendment is necessary. Let me explain why.
The implementation of these provisions will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee that we have been discussing. That role was enhanced by the treaty from that originally envisaged. The commitment from our friends and allies in Rwanda is evident given the progress that has already been made. Let me set out two or three concrete pieces of evidence to help my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
On Thursday 21 March, the Rwandan Senate passed legislation ratifying the treaty. The domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system has been approved by the Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. The complaints process has been set up. This, plus the wider assurances on the training process, which will ensure the quality of decision making and build capability in Rwanda’s asylum system, all reaffirm the fact that we have confidence in Rwanda’s commitment to delivering this partnership and in its status as a safe country.
As is evident from our numerous debates, Rwanda has a strong track record of welcoming asylum seekers and looking after refugees, and it has also been internationally recognised as generally safe and stable. A further piece of evidence is that Rwanda’s overall score in the World Justice Project’s rule of law index has increased consistently. It is the first in sub-Saharan Africa and 41st globally. In fact, it is higher than both Georgia and India, which this Parliament has in the recent past confirmed are safe countries. Those relocated to Rwanda will be given safety and extensive support, as detailed and set out in the treaty. I am grateful to all the officials in the Government of Rwanda who have been working so hard on this.
Lords amendment 6D, which I characterise as a wrecking amendment, would simply encourage illegal migrants to continue to frustrate the system through lengthy legal challenges in order to prevent their removal, running contrary to the core purpose of the Bill. The Bill strikes the appropriate balance of limiting unnecessary challenges that frustrate removal, while maintaining the principle of access to the courts. Taken as a whole, the limited availability of domestic remedies maintains the right constitutional balance—the balance that we have all been seeking in this Chamber—between Parliament being able to legislate as it deems necessary, and the powers of our courts to hold the Government to account.
Turning to the final Lords amendment, amendment 10D, I acknowledge, as I acknowledged during our previous exchanges, that this Government recognise the commitment  and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us. I repeat: we will not let them down. Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 enables the Secretary of State to specify categories of persons to whom the duty to remove will not apply. Once the United Kingdom’s special forces Afghan relocations and assistance policy review, announced on 19 February, has concluded, the Government will consider how to revisit our immigration legislation and how it will apply to those who will be eligible as a result of  the review.

Sammy Wilson: It is one thing to hear the Minister give the assurances he has given today, but the fact remains that we have been out of Afghanistan for some time now. There is considerable evidence that those who helped us, and put themselves in danger as a result, have not been able to get easy access to the United Kingdom and get immigration status. The Government have not dealt with the issue in the past, despite the fact that the difficulty that these people are facing has been made quite clear, so why should we believe their assurances that they will deal with it in the future? Therefore, this amendment is necessary.

Michael Tomlinson: The answer is that this Prime Minister has placed around his Cabinet table the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—a veterans’ Minister sitting at the highest level. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has served our country, as have many right hon. and hon. Members across the House. We will not let veterans down. That is the reassurance that has been given from this Dispatch Box and in the other place by the noble Lord Sharpe.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) expressed optimism on Monday. I confess that I too am an optimist. May I take this opportunity, perhaps in the optimistic hope that this might be my last opportunity during the passage of the Bill, to thank all the Bill team in the Home Office for their extraordinary work? It is a team effort, but may I praise one who has gone above and beyond, whose voice, I hope, recovers? She knows who I am talking about. I thank the parliamentary Clerks for their advice and assistance, not least in our marathon Reasons Committee sessions. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for always ensuring that I have been in order.
To conclude, we have made it abundantly clear that our priority is to stop the boats. We simply cannot stand by and allow people smugglers to control who enters our country and to see more lives being lost at sea. We have an obligation to the public and to those who are being exploited by criminal gangs to stop this vile trade and protect our borders. Letting this Bill pass now will send a clear signal that if people come to the United Kingdom illegally they will not be able to stay. I commend the motion to the House.

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the noble Lords in the other place for all the hard work they have done in trying to amend the Bill, which is quite frankly a sham and a con. I would like to highlight the restraint  that they have exercised. Despite the deeply damaging nature of this legislation, in terms of its impact on our constitutional conventions and our adherence as a country to the rule of law, none of the amendments before us today seeks to wreck the Bill or the unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful scheme the Bill seeks to enact. Not one of them would prevent flights to Rwanda from taking off or stop the Government flogging this dead horse of a policy. Instead, the amendments seek only to commit the Government to the promises they have already made about who will be sent to Rwanda, and to clarify the mechanisms that will underpin that process.
Ministers claim that there is tremendous and pressing urgency, but if that is the case why did the Government forgo the opportunity to use Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 March for debates and divisions on the Bill? Could it be because they needed extra time to scramble high and low for an airline that wanted to be associated with this unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful scheme? Or could it be because the Home Secretary is unable to decide who should be exempted from deportation to Rwanda? Indeed, it has been reported that, because of his dithering, the entire hare-brained scheme has been given a “red risk” rating in the Home Office.
That brings me to the permanent secretary’s comments at the Public Accounts Committee on Monday—namely that 40,000 asylum seekers are currently stuck in the truly Kafkaesque perma-backlog of inadmissible cases whose claims for asylum the Government are refusing to process. Forty thousand requires an awful lot of flights, given that the Government have not managed to get one flight off the ground and given what we know about the Rwandan Government’s capacity to process just a few hundred cases a year.
Therefore, given that a maximum of around 1% of the asylum seekers who are in the perma-backlog can be sent to Rwanda, what is the Minister’s plan for the remaining 99% who are stuck in this indefinite limbo of his Government’s own making? Is the plan to keep them in taxpayer-funded hotels, of which hundreds are still in operation, according to what the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border said on Monday, despite the Government’s boasts? Or, perhaps they will have an amnesty, which the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) warned about last year, and which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) warned about at that very Committee.
Well, we know what we would do: we would deliver our backlog clearance plan, surging the number of decision-makers to process claims quickly, and set up our new returns and enforcement unit with 1,000 new staff to remove those who have no right to be here.
It is quite frankly shocking that the number of foreign criminals removed has dropped by a staggering 27 % under the Conservatives, and also profoundly worrying that the number of failed asylum seekers being returned has plummeted by 44 % in that time, with just 2%—2%!—of small boat crossers removed since 2018. What a sorry state of affairs.
Our new returns unit, together with our cross-border police units to go after the criminal smuggler gangs operating in the channel upstream—funded, of course, through redirecting the money that has been squandered on Rwanda—gives us a compelling and realistic plan. It is a plan that is based on hard graft, common sense and  effective international co-operation, in stark contrast with the headline-chasing gimmicks, empty gestures and blank cheques that have come to define the way in which successive Conservative Governments have broken our asylum system and lost control of our borders.
The Government’s refusal to engage constructively with the other place on this Bill is deeply disappointing, given that their lordships have simply been fulfilling their constitutional duty to revise and improve the draft legislation that we convey to them. The noble Baroness Butler-Sloss received a tiny concession for her commendable attempts to stop the Government sending victims of modern slavery to Rwanda, but let us be clear: that concession was barely worth the paper that it was written on.
It is utterly shameful that Ministers are still refusing to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Browne. We owe a debt of honour and gratitude to the Afghans who so bravely fought alongside British troops, and the idea that we might send them to Rwanda is simply unconscionable. Lord Browne’s amendment is not only driven by a moral imperative; it is underpinned by our national interest and by military logic, for the simple and obvious reason that the ability of our armed forces to recruit local allies will be severely constrained if this Bill passes unamended.
Let me turn now to the other amendments before us today. It cannot be repeated often enough that adherence to the rule of law must remain at the heart of our constitutional conventions, and as a cornerstone of our liberal democratic values. It is therefore profoundly concerning that Ministers continue to refuse to recognise how important it is for Britain to abide by these principles, and to have this commitment in the Bill.

Bill Cash: I simply want to put it to the hon. Gentleman that, as the rule of law includes the basis of sovereignty, it is quite clear—from one great jurist to another right the way down through the generations—that, where an Act of Parliament is clear and unambiguous in its wording, it is the duty of the courts, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has just said with regard to Lord Reed’s judgment, to give effect to those words. That is the rule of law, not this confection that the hon. Gentleman is producing time and again. If I may say so, he has flogged this dead horse not just once, but many times, because he keeps on saying it. He has repeated himself now three times. I have never seen a dead horse flogged so badly as that by the hon. Gentleman.

Stephen Kinnock: Lectures about flogging dead horses in the context of a debate about Rwanda really is quite extraordinary, because if we wanted a definition of a dead horse, it is this policy. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many exchanges on this point and I have enjoyed them. As I have repeatedly said to him, yes Parliament is sovereign, but Parliament must act with due care and attention and caution with regard to the opinions that come from our most eminent court, the Supreme Court, and in this case the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Rwanda is not a safe country. It is a travesty that Parliament is seeking to undermine the rule of our judiciary in that way and it raises deeply troubling questions about this issue of the rule of law.

John Redwood: Where would the proposed returns unit send illegals to, and what if the countries concerned did not want to receive them?

Stephen Kinnock: I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, as we often get this point about returns from Conservative Members. What I find fascinating is that, when we look at, for example, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are clearly safe countries in principle, we see that 80% of the applicants from those countries whose asylum claims fail are not being removed by this Government. For instance, the Home Office rejected asylum applications from 1,750 Pakistanis in 2023, yet Home Office data shows that just 620 people were removed to Pakistan in 2023. A clear proportion of those would have been asylum seekers—some may well have been foreign national offenders. The key point is that there are many, many countries to which it is more than possible to return people, yet the Government are simply failing to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) asked an extraordinary question in Home Office orals on Monday about a foreign national offender in her constituency who has been convicted of a sexual offence and has asked to be returned to his country of origin, but the Home Office has not facilitated that or allowed it to happen. Clearly, there is something going seriously wrong with returns. As I have mentioned, we have seen the number of returned failed asylum seekers plummet by 44% since 2010. We should be focusing on those countries with low grant rates, because that is where we can clear some of this backlog and return people to their country of origin when they have no right to be here.

Kevin Foster: I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. I find it interesting that he has suggested that all we need to do is ask India for emergency travel documents and it will immediately issue them. Has he made any attempt to find out what the issues might be there?

Stephen Kinnock: The key point is that, under the last Labour Government, returns were working. A part of that, I suspect, is based on proper, adult, grown-ups in the room having proper, adult, grown-up diplomatic conversations with the Governments with whom we mean to engage. What we have seen with this Government over the past few years is a consistent commitment to burning diplomatic relationships with a whole range of countries, and when we burn those bridges it makes it much more difficult to achieve what we need to achieve in our own national interest.
The Government have promised a whole range of things from that Dispatch Box, and the Lords amendments on these rule of law issues are simply seeking to put in the Bill what Ministers have promised. Why else are they rejecting the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Lord Coaker, which simply asks the Government to commit to promises that they have made? Likewise, why not support the Lords amendment in the name of the noble Baroness Chakrabarti, which allows Ministers, officials and courts to consider whether Rwanda is safe for individuals on a case-by-case basis, if the Government support the principle of appeals, as Ministers claim that they do?

Bill Cash: Given that the noble Lord Coaker has brought this forward in one shape or another several times, and given that it is central to the debate, in the light of what I said in my earlier intervention, would I be right in thinking that the Leader of the Opposition supports the amendment? If so, why?

Stephen Kinnock: It is for the simple reason that we want to put in the Bill an articulation of what has already been said by Ministers from the Dispatch Box. We feel that it is extremely important to underline this country’s commitment to the rule of law. The hon. Gentleman mentions the Leader of the Opposition; as an eminent lawyer himself, there are few who are more committed to the rule of law than he.
If there is a parallel universe in which the Rwandan Government are able to process asylum claims in a safe and competent manner, surely it makes sense to verify that point and the measures that are set out in the Rwanda treaty, and to verify that they have been fully implemented, and for the Government’s hand-picked monitoring committee to establish that that is the case. That is not an unreasonable request from the noble Lord Hope, and the Government should therefore support his amendment, precisely as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is no longer in his place, pointed out.
The British people are looking on at this Government’s attempts to continue flogging this dead horse of a Bill—that seems to have become the metaphor of the day—with a growing sense of bemusement and anger. Blowing half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money on sending 300 people to Rwanda is utterly mind-boggling. It is equally staggering that £2 million will be spent per asylum seeker to send them to Rwanda. We could surely spend £2 million more effectively on sending the Prime Minister and his four predecessors on a one-way trip to outer space with Virgin Galactic.
Perhaps the right thing to do would be for the Government to drop this entire failing fiasco and instead adopt Labour’s detailed plan to repurpose the Rwanda money into smashing the criminal smuggler gangs and ending the Tory small boats chaos. We know what the Bill is really about; the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), admitted it in December. It is all about the Prime Minister getting “a few symbolic flights” off the ground before the general election. This weekend, a civil servant confirmed to Lizzie Dearden in the i newspaper that efforts are geared towards a single flight as “proof of concept”, calling it an “election vanity scam”.
That really tells us everything that we need to know. None of this is about dealing with the chaos that the Government have created; they have focused on getting a couple of symbolic flights off the ground. It lets the cat well and truly out of the bag. Everyone can see the Rwanda scheme for what it really is, everyone can see the legislation for what it really is, and everybody can see this Government for what they are. I think we need a new one, and so too do the British people.

Robert Buckland: Bearing in mind the short time, I will do my best to speak briefly. We have four amendments from the Lords. I can deal  with them in short order. Amendment 1D has no merit. I have not voted on that particular issue before, but today I will vote against it, because we cannot perfect that mess of a clause—clause 1. I will not repeat the arguments that I have made on that, and I really do not think that the amendment improves the clause with the addition of various statutes, as the Minister said. I think that we should reject the amendment.
I agree that amendment 6D is a wrecking amendment. We know that the delineation of clause 4 specifically with individual cases was a proper and right addition to the Bill from the outset, which I think makes it compliant with the rule of law. Therefore the amendment should be rejected. I will not repeat my arguments on amendment 10D. I still think that there is a class of people who served this country, and bravely exposed themselves to danger, who have not yet been dealt with. Many of them are in Pakistan. It would perhaps have been helpful to see an amendment in lieu to deal with that point, as the Minister did with regard to modern-day slavery, for which I thank him.
I was pleased to hear the detailed reference that the Minister made to the progress being made by the Government of Rwanda to implement the provisions under the treaty. That is clearly the issue at the heart of amendment 3E and clause 2. He knows my concern about deeming provisions and the desirability of their meeting the reality of the situation, which is why I welcome his statement, and the statement of the noble Lord, the Advocate-General in the other place, that the Bill will not come into force until the treaty has been implemented.
I think the Minister conceded that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hope is not a wrecking amendment; it is designed to ensure that there is a mechanism through which this place can deal with the fact that Rwanda is a safe country, and to ensure that if, God forbid, the situation ever deteriorated such that it was no longer a safe country, we would not need primary legislation to correct the situation. At the moment we would. The second proposed new subsection in amendment 3E would allow this place to be involved in a situation where Rwanda might no longer be a safe country, on the advice of the independent monitoring committee, which of course is a creature of the treaty itself, set up under the treaty, as the Minister described. It is not part of the Hope amendment to set up a new body. That is not the intention.

Jeremy Wright: I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s reservations about the inability of this House to reconsider the matter of the safety of Rwanda under the current legislation, but is the problem with the noble Lord Hope’s amendment not that the mechanism that he describes gives to the monitoring committee the final say on the safety of Rwanda? It does not give this House the opportunity to say, “We’ve heard the advice of the monitoring committee, but we none the less believe that Rwanda remains a safe country for the purposes of the legislation.” My right hon. and learned Friend and I might think that that is a wholly unlikely scenario, but as a matter of parliamentary sovereignty, does he agree that it must remain possible?

Robert Buckland: Up to a point, Lord Copper. I think the second proposed new subsection in the amendment—proposed new subsection (8) of clause 1   —will provide leeway for the Government to disagree with the advisory committee, which might advise that Rwanda is no longer a safe country when in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is. Then it would be a matter for Parliament to determine, and the trigger would not come into place. On the first proposed new subsection in the amendment—proposed new subsection (7) of clause 1—my right hon. and learned Friend is on stronger ground, in the sense that it relates to a statement from the independent monitoring committee. However, I have no problem with an independent monitoring committee that has been set up by a treaty that has been agreed to by this Government and by the Government of Rwanda, and which has come into force in our law through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 provisions. Slightly inelegant though it is, it is difficult to see another way to do this that could be conclusive, and which could give certainty to all those involved in the operation of the scheme.
The Minister knows that I seek to remove and reduce the possibility of legal challenge. I do not want to see the legislation becoming the subject of angst, sturm und drang in either the High Court, the Court of Appeal or, God forbid, the Supreme Court. We saw the effects of what happened when the situation as of 2022 was determined on the evidence by the Supreme Court. The Minister knows my views about that. Whatever concerns I have about the Supreme Court in effect conducting a test on evidence, which frankly is not what it should be doing—the Supreme Court should deal with and interpret the law of this country—that is the reality in which we operate. I want to ensure that the Bill does not lead to the same problem. That is why the noble Lord Hope’s amendment has strong merit. It clears up any doubt that there is not a mechanism either for the Executive or this place to apply the provisions of the Bill, or to disapply them when the facts change.
Let us ensure that the reality keeps pace with the law, and that deeming provisions, however attractive they might be, are not used as a device to cut corners and to run ahead of ourselves in a way that will only cause problems, not just for the judicial system but for the operation of the policy itself, which the Minister knows I have consistently supported, and will continue to support, as an innovative and proper response to the unprecedented challenge of mass migration that the west is facing now. This is serious stuff. I want the Government to get it right.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Alison Thewliss: I will start in order with Lords amendment 1D in the name of Lord Coaker. The Minister asked why the Government ought to have due regard for those particular pieces of legislation—why would we want to have due regard for international law and various Acts, including the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Modern Slavery Act 2015? Well, the reason is found on the face of the Bill, which states, in the name of the Home Secretary:
“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
The Government are setting out to undermine our international obligations, so it is quite right for the Lords to insist that we abide by them. That is the very least the Government should be doing. There are implications for children, for people who have been victims of slavery and trafficking, and for people whose human rights will be abused. The Government should be paying far more attention to that.
On Lords amendment 3E in the name of Lord Hope, there is significance in ensuring that the monitoring committee can do its job properly. It is not clear in what circumstances Rwanda can be declared not safe. The monitoring committee is supposed to produce an annual report that then goes up the chain to the Joint Committee, but there is no mechanism for the committee to blow the whistle should something happen. There is no mechanism for it to say, “Suddenly, something has happened and Rwanda is no longer safe.” What happens in that circumstance to those recommendations? How are they acted on, and what then happens to the people the UK wants to send to Rwanda?
There no such mechanism in this legislation—or, as far as I can see, in the treaty, which involves a three-month delay, and the agreement of both parties, before anything can be annulled. What happens should something untoward occur in Rwanda? I referred to the action of the M23 rebels in my remarks earlier this week, but the Minister did not respond to it in his summing up. What happens if something goes awry? We do not know; we are beholden to the Government’s assertion that Rwanda is safe in perpetuity. There is no mechanism to remove the perpetuity of Rwanda’s designation as “safe.”
I highlight the experience of the Irish author and journalist Sally Hayden, who wrote “My Fourth Time, We Drowned: Seeking Refuge on the World's Deadliest Migration Route”. She has raised concerns about the mechanisms of scrutiny in Rwanda itself, and about the treatment of refugees in Rwanda. She has visited the country on several occasions, but was denied entry last month as she went to cover the 30th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. She has tried to resolve that with the Rwandan authorities, but believes that she was refused entry precisely because she has criticised them and their treatment of refugees. Should that not alarm us all when it comes to the scrutiny of the Bill both here and in Rwanda? She said:
“Proper scrutiny of the consequences of this policy are not possible because it’s not a country with freedom of media and freedom of speech”.
We should be deeply concerned about that. Without that independence and scrutiny, we cannot be certain that what is happening in Rwanda is what the UK Government intend or what the Rwandan Government are telling us. Press freedom is crucial for that level of scrutiny, beyond the supposedly independent monitoring committee. I support amendment 3E.
I also support amendment 6D, in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, because it stands up for the right of our own authorities to make proper decisions. It empowers our decision makers and our courts, as they should be empowered, to look at the evidence before them and make proper decisions. The Government are asking the judiciary, immigration officers, tribunals and everybody in the system to engage in a legal fantasy—that they  should ignore all the evidence before them and believe the Government when they say that Rwanda is safe in perpetuity. With reference to proposed new subsection 1(c), which deals with refoulement, I remind the House that Rwanda engaged in the refoulement of several persons during the negotiation of the treaty, never mind at any time. We should be worried about that.
Lords amendment 10D proposes the new clause, “Exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK Overseas”. We had an urgent question earlier today about the people from Afghanistan who are being yeeted out of Pakistan. The Pakistani Government are apparently pleading by using Rwanda as some kind of justification for that behaviour. That really indicates the ripple effect of what the Government are doing: other countries are praying in aid this legislation when they look to do things that we also have concerns about.
In that UQ, I raised the point that we have been waiting three years for the UK Government to get their act together on the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. People should not still be waiting in uncertainty and fear, with the prospect of being executed by the Taliban should they be removed back to Afghanistan. It is absolutely unacceptable and unjustifiable that the Government have done so little in three years to protect Afghans who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan.
The very least the Government could do is approve the proposed new clause in Lords amendment 10D, to acknowledge that the people who served with us deserve protection—that the people who are coming on small boats because the Government schemes have failed to protect them should be exempt from being sent to Rwanda. The Government are refusing to accept that, and I think that is absolutely despicable.
With the best will in the world, those amendments are not enough. Even if we passed them, the Rwanda Bill is a turd that cannot be polished—it is absolutely disgusting and objectionable in every sense. Will the Labour party repeal it? The Bill will pass, but will Labour Members repeal it as one of their first actions in government, or keep it in statute? I would like to have an answer on the record.
I reiterate my deep concerns that this is state-sponsored people trafficking. Whichever way we cut it, it means moving people to another country against their will and without their consent. That is people trafficking. The Government cannot find a commercial airline to take people, but even more concerning is that they are engaging a Royal Air Force contractor, AirTanker, to remove people to Rwanda against their will.
The position of the Scottish National party remains that we oppose the Bill in every single sense. I will vote against it at every given opportunity—even in the Reasons Room behind your Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—because it is despicable and does not stand in Scotland’s name.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We have very little time left so I must put on a formal time limit of two minutes.

Bill Cash: I will be brief and focus entirely on Lord Coaker’s amendment 1D, which I have already mentioned in interventions. The problem with the wording that he put forward in debate is one of disingenuously mixing apples and pears. I want to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is also behind the amendment, because it is much more substantial than its predecessor. It is actually a change in Labour policy as well. The noble Lord Irvine, Tony Blair as Prime Minister and Jack Straw all agreed that the sovereignty of Parliament, where words are clear and unambiguous, prevails.
The bottom line is that that is exactly what we are dealing with here. I applaud the idea of maintaining international law—I have never taken a different view—but in his speech Lord Coaker compared what is going on in the middle east to the illegal war in Ukraine and the Houthis in the Red sea. He fails to appreciate that those situations are separate to this issue, and I am raising this as a matter of principle and constitutional propriety. Those are exclusively matters of prerogative, whereas in this instance we are dealing with an issue of sovereignty and the clear and unambiguous words that appear in statute, as Lord Hoffmann made clear when he distinguished between treaties and statutes in relation to the case of Regina v. Lyons, which I have referred to previously.
The position is basically and simply this: I stand by what I have said on this subject in the past. I sincerely trust that the Court will agree that these words are clear and unambiguous.

Diana R. Johnson: The Government’s motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1D is a motion to disagree with the Government’s obligation in relation to the Bill to have due regard for international law and the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015. If the Government are confident that the Rwanda scheme will be fully compliant with international law and the aforementioned domestic law, I do not understand why they are rejecting this amendment again.
The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 3E would scrap the requirement inserted by the Lords that Rwanda be treated as a safe country only if and when protections contained in the treaty are judged by the independent monitoring committee to have been implemented and to remain implemented. Surely Lords amendment 3E is an entirely proper and legal amendment if the Government deem that the measure in their own treaty is necessary? Given that Members had no opportunity to debate that treaty prior to ratification, the amendment would at least provide some reassurance that the protections it contains will be put into practice.
The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 6D is a motion to deny individual grounds for legal challenge that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons, or that there is a real risk that Rwanda will remove or send those persons to another state. The Home Affairs Committee has always been clear that there has to be the opportunity for appropriate legal challenge as a necessary part of our fair asylum system.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s assurances about the specified category that could be used in the future, but amendment 10D sets out very clearly why such provisions should be included on the face of the  Bill and our obligations to those who have helped us and our armed forces overseas. That amendment would be the right thing to add to the Bill.

Rachel Maclean: As I was watching Aston Villa smash Arsenal on Sunday, my thoughts turned to today’s debate because, as Aston Villa fans will know, the Emirates stadium is of course sponsored by the Visit Rwanda scheme, and Arsenal play with those words emblazoned on their shirts.
I strongly support the Government’s position as set out by the reasons articulated by my right hon. and learned Friend the excellent Minister for Countering Illegal Migration. More than that, though, behind all these amendments, this ping-pong, the Reasons Room, and this process, which is quite baffling to my constituents, lies a simple question: is this Parliament sovereign or not? I believe I was sent to this Parliament to make laws in the interests of my constituents in Redditch. They are a generous people—we have accepted refugees from around the world and given them a warm Redditch welcome—but in the interests of stability and security, and protecting those British values and the culture that we all care about, they also ask that we enact measures to enable our country to control our borders. This whole debate is really summed up by the question of whether or not we in the west are able to control our borders, because we all know that this is going to get much worse. Some 100 million people are on the move.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), talked about having more grown-ups in the room and talking more nicely. Perhaps the people smugglers will listen to that and stop putting people in small boats, but somehow I doubt it—it is complete and utter nonsense. We are sent to this place to make hard choices, not emote and do things that make us feel good in the moment. We have to stand on one side, with the sovereignty of this Parliament and the people of Redditch, and this Bill is the way to do so. Let us get Rwanda done. We will stop these boats and make our country safer.

John Martin McDonnell: We are at that stage in the legislative process where Government obstinacy sometimes overcomes rationality. There is no way that these can be described as wrecking amendments—I wish they were, but they are not. Lords amendment 3E simply uses the Government’s own mechanism to ensure, as Conservative Members have said, that Parliament has the opportunity to change its judgment when the facts change. Anyone who has any experience of the history of this region of Africa realises that there is built-in instability, and therefore we may well need to come back to this matter, although I hope we do not.
My Northern Ireland colleague the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked about Lords amendment 10D, and the ministerial response was that we should not worry because the fact that a number of veterans sit in Cabinet means that the system will work for those who served in Afghanistan. I am sorry, but so far, the veterans sitting around the Cabinet table have not ensured that. Many of us have dealt with individual cases, and all Lords amendment 10D would do is ensure that we live up to our commitment that those who served alongside us, putting their lives and those of  their families at risk, will be secure. The existing scheme has not worked in that way, but Lords amendment 10D would ensure that it did in the future.
My final point is that I came to this place on the basis that Parliament was all about protecting its citizens and ensuring that they have safety but also access to law. Baroness Chakrabarti’s amendment 6D simply ensures that Parliament fulfils that role—it certainly is not a wrecking amendment.

Eleanor Laing: I call the Minister.

Michael Tomlinson: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I would like to make a few remarks; I fear that I do not have time to respond to each and every point that has been made, but I thank right hon. and hon. Members right across the House for the contributions they have made.
I want to pick up on one contribution, which is the intervention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made on the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). The shadow Minister cannot actually say what Labour would do: he says that he has a plan, but all Labour can say it would do is exactly what the Government are already doing. It has said that it would scrap the Rwanda scheme even when it is up and running, but it has not found a deterrent. Worse than that, as my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) have also said previously, it is incumbent on anyone who disagrees with this policy to come up with their own solution to the problem of how we deal with people who enter the country with no legitimate, credible case for claiming asylum and who cannot be returned to their home country. As ever, answer came there none from the Labour party.
Letting this Bill now pass will enable us to send a clear signal: “If you enter this country illegally, you will not be able to stay. You will be detained and swiftly returned to your home country or to a safe third country, namely Rwanda.” I urge this House to once again send a strong message back to the other place that these amendments are not necessary.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1D.

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 240.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 1D disagreed to.
More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 18 March).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3E.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 240.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 3E disagreed to.

Clause 4 - Decisions in individual claims

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6D.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 240.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 6D disagreed to.

After Clause 5 - Exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK Overseas

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 10D.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 244.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 10D disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendments 1D, 3E, 6D, and 10D;
That Michael Tomlinson, Scott Mann, Dr Kieran Mullan, James Sunderland, Stephen Kinnock, Colleen Fletcher and Alison Thewliss be members of the Committee;
That Michael Tomlinson be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mark Jenkinson.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Second Reading

Nigel Evans: The reasoned amendment in the name of Drew Hendry has been selected.

Nigel Huddleston: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Last month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a Budget to deliver on the priorities of the Prime Minister and his Government, in the context of an improving economic picture. Inflation has more than halved, down from its peak of 11.1% to 3.2%. Real wages have increased for the ninth month in a row and are now growing at an average annual real rate of 1.9%. The Finance (No. 2) Bill builds on these improvements by seeking to reward work, boosting the housing market, improving the tax system and strengthening the economy. This follows on from our national insurance cuts that, when combined with the autumn reductions, mean 27 million employees will get an average tax cut of £900 a year and 2 million self-employed people will get a tax cut averaging £700 a year, all made possible because we have a plan for growth and for better and more efficient public services. The Bill covers 24 different measures in total and I will outline its most substantive powers.

Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister consider a further measure to right a historic injustice? In Committee, will he entertain an amendment to allow those caught up in the loan charge access to a tribunal?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. We have had a discussion about the loan charge previously. I do not believe an amendment would be in order on this Bill, but I say to my right hon. Friend and others that I am always open to hearing concerns about the loan charge. I have done previously and will happily continue to hear information, evidence and concerns from colleagues.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for coming to the House to present the Bill. Over the last six months, particularly the last few weeks, farmers have been under exceptional weather pressure, with the implication that they will be unable to cultivate or plough their land or sow their crops. The Minister referred to inflation coming down. By the way, I am glad that it is dropping; we all should be, and if we are not there is something wrong with us. At the same time, inflation cannot come down if the cost of foodstuffs starts to rise. Has the Minister had the opportunity to consider that issue? How can we help farmers to keep food prices down at this difficult time, and thereby ensure inflation continues to drop?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive welcome of today’s news about inflation. He is right that it is welcome but we always need to keep an eye on it. I join him in thanking our farmers, who have played a pivotal role in helping food prices to come  down. The supermarkets have a role in that area as well. He raises some points that are slightly outside the remit of the Bill, but I assure him I will continue to have conversations with ministerial colleagues and others, and I am sure he will as well. We always listen to the important farming community in this country, who do so much to create employment and provide us with food.
The Bill covers 24 different measures. I will not go through every single one of them, but want to focus on a few key areas. First, I turn to how the Bill rewards work. We all recognise the simple truth that work should pay. We understand how hard many people up and down the country work. This Government want to ensure they are recognised for that because that approach not only benefits individuals and families, but overall growth and the economy. As I mentioned, that is why we have already taken two Bills to cut national insurance through Parliament, but this Bill goes further.
A key measure in the Bill is to increase the high-income child benefit charge threshold from £50,000 to £60,000. In addition, the rate of the charge will be halved, so that individuals continue to receive child benefit until one household member earns £80,000, taking 170,000 families out of paying this tax charge. These changes are a well-earned reward for working families up and down the country and put pounds back into parents’ pockets.

Sammy Wilson: While the changes in the child benefit allowances are important, especially helping parents who want to get into work and have their children looked after, does the Minister accept that one of the biggest impacts of the Budget on people who are working is the way in which they are being dragged into higher tax rates because thresholds have not been raised? That is having a huge disincentive effect on working families.

Nigel Huddleston: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, back in 2010, the tax-free allowance was, I think, £6,475. Actions taken by this Government since then have increased the tax-free allowance to more than £12,500, a significant real-terms increase, which means that take-home pay is higher than it otherwise would have been. When taken in combination with other measures, it is a really important move.
Furthermore, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to detract from the significant changes in national insurance, which have put money back into people’s pockets. We have eliminated by a third a whole category of taxation—national insurance—and that will help working people in this country as well.

Richard Fuller: Just to reinforce this point about the increase in thresholds, the Minister says that it has been a significant real-terms increase, but it is actually a 21% increase, which is very significant indeed. My question is on the part of the HICBCs that were announced in the Budget but that he did not quite mention, which was the plan from 2025-26 to base the benefit on the household budget rather than the individual budget. Can he just reassure the House that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be up to speed to be able to implement that part of what the Chancellor has outlined?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but he has jumped ahead to a later part of my speech. I will get on to that point in a moment, because the movement to a household budget is an important part of the announcements.
I should just reiterate the first points on the changes that we have made. Overall, we estimate that 485,000 families will gain an average of £1,260 in child benefit in 2024-25 from these changes to HICBC. And, of course, what is good for families is also good for the economy at large, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, through these child benefit changes, the economy will gain additional hours work equivalent to around 10,000 full-time equivalents by 2028-29. Going forward, we want to ensure that the child benefit system fairly rewards families in all their diversity, including those who, for example, have only one working parent. The Government will end the unfairness, for example, of single earner families in the child benefit system by administering the HICBC on a household rather than an individual basis by April 2026. We shall be consulting on this in due course, as my hon. Friend quite rightly highlighted. This is something, we know, that many people have been calling for.

Nigel Mills: Can the Minister give us an indication of what level of household income the Treasury has in mind for that consultation? I presume that it will be much higher than £80,000; otherwise, it would be a more punitive situation. Will it be £100,00 or £120,000? What will it be?

Nigel Huddleston: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s inquisitiveness, but this is the point of the consultation. We will be having a consultation and I am sure that his views and opinions and those of others will be taken into account.
I shall now turn to how the Bill will drive investment in our economy. We all recognise that investment in the economy is crucial for economic growth. It supports everyone across the country and ensures our competitiveness in international markets. That is why, through this Bill, the Government are taking decisions for the long term to support that investment. For example, our creative industries contributed £126 billion in gross value added in 2022 and supported more than 2 million jobs.
By announcing more than £1billion of new reliefs for the UK’s world-leading creative industries at the spring Budget, we have signalled our commitment to ensuring the sector’s continued growth. For example, we will make current tax reliefs for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries permanent, at a rate of 45% for touring theatres and touring productions by museums and galleries; 40% for non-touring productions; and 45% for orchestras. That will ensure that our creative industries have the support they need after the unprecedented economic shock of the pandemic.
We will also further support the UK’s independent film sector through a new UK independent film tax credit at a rate of 53% for films with a budget of up to £15 million, which is worth about £80 million a year. This will support the production of UK independent films and, of course, the incubation of UK talent, which is admired around the world. This Government are committed to supporting UK businesses and these measures deliver on that.

Neale Hanvey: The amendment in my name sought to address the failure of the Bill to bring in tax measures to ensure the continuation of oil and gas activity in Scotland, including at Grangemouth oil refinery. Almost 90% of levy revenue comes from Scotland, but there is precious little by way of investment in that part of the economy. A good example of that is the UK Government’s denial of £80 million to save Grangemouth, while at the same time signing a loan guarantee of £600 million for INEOS, for activity in Antwerp and Belgium. According to the response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), the UK Government have not even assessed the potential supply of that activity.

Nigel Evans: Order. Come on—ask a question.

Neale Hanvey: Can the Minister not see the perversity of spending Scottish revenue abroad while jobs in Scotland are wilfully put at risk by this Government?

Nigel Huddleston: I could not disagree more with the hon. Member’s premise. If anybody has shown support for the sector, this Government have. We have shown huge support for the sector, in an appropriate and proportionate way, while also encouraging the industry to decarbonise. As I said, we are taking fiscally responsible decisions to extend the energy profits levy for one year. We are also providing confidence and certainty to businesses in the sector by legislating for an energy profits levy price floor. That is what is in the Bill. That will effectively abolish the energy profits levy if the six-month average for both oil and gas is at or below a set threshold. Doing so was the sector’s main ask in the 2024 spring Budget, and it could help to unlock around £9 billion in uncommitted investment spend, according to Offshore Energies UK, which welcomed the decision. I am sorry that he feels unable to welcome it as well.
Those measures will ensure that investment in our economy continues to grow. I will now outline some measures in the Bill’s property package. The Bill will cut the higher rate of capital gains tax on residential property from 28% to 24%, encouraging landlords and second home owners to sell their properties, which could increase revenues because there would be more transactions.

Luke Evans: The capital gains tax cut is very welcome, but will the Minister outline whether it will come into play retrospectively? Hypothetically, if a Labour Front Bencher happened to owe some capital gains tax, would they benefit from a Conservative tax cut?

Nigel Huddleston: I think I know where my hon. Friend is heading. Of course I cannot comment on individual tax situations. His point, though, is an important one: everybody should always pay the taxes that they owe. I think that principle is shared across the House. The measure will be implemented from 6 April 2024, so some people may be disappointed that there is no retrospectivity, but as I say, it will make more homes available to purchase for a variety of buyers, including first-time buyers.
We also need to ensure that the property system is fair and working as intended. The Government are clear that where policies are not meeting their policy objectives, we will take action. That is why we are  abolishing multiple dwellings relief, a bulk purchase relief in the stamp duty and land tax regime, from 1 June 2024. That follows an external evaluation that found no strong evidence that the relief is meeting its original objective of supporting investment in the private rented sector, and because HMRC has recorded high and clear instances of its abuse. We are also amending rules to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are not unfairly penalised if they wish to buy their first homes anonymously, and that those in difficult circumstances do not face additional barriers to purchasing homes. We will ensure that registered providers of social housing in England and Northern Ireland are not liable for stamp duty land tax when purchasing property with a public subsidy, and exempt public bodies from the 15% anti-avoidance rate.
Finally, I turn to measures that will simplify and modernise our tax system, making it easier to engage with the tax system and closing loopholes that could be used for avoidance. The negative impacts of inefficient, complex taxes on both businesses and the wider economy cannot be overstated. That is why the Government are taking action to ensure that the system works for everyone. As a starting point, we are amending two primary VAT interest provisions in legislation to ensure that they apply to all cases intended by the policy. That will mean that the interest payments that HMRC recovers are correct, and it will save time and resources for HMRC and businesses.
The Government recognise that it is everyone’s responsibility to pay their fair share of tax to support our vital public services, so we are closing another anti-avoidance loophole—one that enables individuals to avoid tax by moving assets abroad via a company. That is one of 200 measures that we have undertaken since 2010 to close loopholes and reduce the tax gap, which now sits at just 4.8%—down from 7.5% under Labour. Yes, that is an inconvenient truth for the Opposition, who recently claimed to be so enthusiastic about tackling tax avoidance yet did not take the actions that we have taken when they were in power. Importantly, Labour failed to support the last Finance Bill, which included further measures to tackle tax avoidance. However, Labour was in good—or, rather, bad—company, because the Lib Dems and the SNP did not support it either.
It is not the first time that we have seen such—how should I put it?—distance between what the Opposition say and what they do. Recently, the Labour party even said that it would support our national insurance tax cuts, but when it came to the vote, I did not see a single Labour MP in the Aye Lobby with the Conservatives. Nor were there any Lib Dems, while SNP Members were in the No Lobby actively voting against tax cuts for their constituents.
The Government are getting on with delivering on our plan to cut taxes, grow the economy and boost investment, but the Labour party would put all that at risk and send us back to square one. Instead of taking the responsible decisions to back businesses, the Labour party wants to saddle them with new regulations. Labour’s so-called new deal for workers is in fact a bad deal for jobs, workers and businesses. The 70 new regulations from the deputy leader of the Labour party and the unions would ban flexible working, disincentivise small businesses from making new hires and unleash waves of low-threshold, zero-warning strikes.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister is quite right to point out the dangers of Labour being in charge of finances and the impact that that is likely to have on tax, but does he have the humility to accept that tax is higher under this Government than it has been for decades?

Nigel Huddleston: I certainly have the humility to accept and recognise that. Taxes are higher out of the obvious and widely accepted necessity of paying for massive amounts of intervention because of the pandemic and in response to supporting families and businesses through the cost of living challenges. We make no apology for intervening to support lives and livelihoods to the extent that it was necessary. It was absolutely vital that we intervened because not doing so would have been a disaster for the UK economy. However, the general level of taxation, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, is much lower in the UK than in many other countries that also had to significantly increase taxes and Government intervention out of necessity in response to the pandemic. We have much lower levels of taxation than Germany, France, Italy and many other countries. As I said, we had high levels of taxation out of necessity, but we are now in a position to start reducing those levels of taxation out of policy intent and choice, and that is exactly what we are doing.
To conclude, this Finance Bill absolutely rewards hard work, supports our vital industries, boosts the housing market and continues to create a fairer, simpler and more modern tax system. It delivers on the Government’s commitment to prioritise economic growth and will ensure a brighter future for our country. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.

James Murray: I am grateful for the chance to respond on behalf of the Opposition in this Second Reading debate.
The Finance Bill follows last month’s Budget, in which the record of the Conservatives’ time in office was laid bare. After 14 years, the Conservatives have shown what they can deliver for the British people: higher taxes, falling living standards and lower economic growth. The truth is that after 14 years, they are out of time, out of ideas and out of touch with reality. They are out of time because whatever they say or try to do now, it is too late to repair the damage that they have done to the economy and to people’s standard of living. The Conservatives may now have implemented a reduction in national insurance—a cut that we support—but that comes amid a tax burden that is set to rise to its highest level in 70 years, and to rise in each and every year of the forecast period. The Government simply cannot escape the reality that under their plans, for every £5 they are giving back to families, they will be taking £10 in higher taxes. Giving with one hand and taking twice as much with the other—that is the reality of life under the Conservatives.
The Government are not just out of time, but out of ideas. In the Budget from which this Finance Bill came, the Conservatives performed what may be the biggest U-turn of this Parliament yet, and there is some tough competition on that. After years and years of the Conservatives opposing tooth and nail our plan to scrap non-dom status, the Chancellor stood in this Chamber last month and adopted our approach as his own. I recall the Financial Secretary’s immediate predecessor,  the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), being a particularly passionate defender of non-dom status. I remember her declaring less than a year ago, during the Committee stage of a previous Finance Bill, that
“We have come to the conclusion that non-domiciled status is right”.––[Official Report, Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 16 May 2023; c. 44.]
How times change!
Despite the Government’s apparent U-turn, we have learned since the Budget through our careful analysis of the Government’s plans that loopholes remain in their approach to abolishing non-dom tax status. Alongside an unnecessary discount in year 1, there is a loophole that appears to have been intentionally designed to allow non-doms to stash money away in offshore trusts, so that they can avoid being subject to inheritance tax, as any other member of the public is. Those loopholes must be closed, because if a person makes their home and does their business in Britain, they should pay their taxes here, too. People will look at those loopholes and rightly conclude that despite the Budget’s U-turn, this Prime Minister just cannot bring himself to sort out the non-dom problem once and for all.

Richard Fuller: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. There may be a few hundred million pounds here or there in what the Government propose doing to tighten up supposed loopholes, but as he is aware, the Labour party wants £28 billion spent on its green investment. Which taxes will he raise to pay for that?

James Murray: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is slightly out of date. Going into the general election, we have set out very clearly our plan to invest in the transition that we need in our energy supply and our economy, and how we would pay for that—through a strengthened windfall tax, alongside prudent investment. He may scoff at what we say about the non-dom tax loopholes, but we are talking about £1 billion in the first year and £2.6 billion over the course of the next Parliament. That money should go to our public services, rather than intentional loopholes allowing some people to get away with paying hundreds of millions of pounds less in tax.
The Conservatives are not just out of ideas, but out of touch with reality. They made that very clear in last month’s Budget, from which this Finance Bill arose. At the end of his Budget speech, the Chancellor made an astonishing £46 billion unfunded commitment—leaving a gaping hole in the public finances—when he pledged to abolish national insurance altogether. Since then, Government Ministers have had countless opportunities to row back from or U-turn on that commitment, but they have been determined not to. Earlier today, the Prime Minister had three chances to rule out cuts to the NHS, cuts to the state pension or tax rises to pay for his £46 billion unfunded tax cut. Each time, he refused to do so.

Nigel Huddleston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Murray: I will in a second. It is quite astonishing that the Conservatives are content to go into the general election with a £46 billion black hole in their plans, and that they refuse to say whether that £46 billion commitment will be funded by tax rises elsewhere or cuts to spending.  I give way to the hon. Gentleman, so that he can confirm exactly how the Government will pay for that £46 billion black hole.

Nigel Huddleston: I very rarely intervene from the Dispatch Box, but I cannot help myself this time. The hon. Gentleman and I have had multiple conversations about this. He cannot differentiate between an aspiration and a policy commitment. His £28 billion was a policy commitment; what we have laid out is an aspiration. They are two different things.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering about the possible hit to pensions or the NHS, he knows full well that those suggestions are absolutely not true, because national insurance does not wholly pay for health, benefits, or indeed pensions. He is either scaremongering or exhibiting complete and utter financial illiteracy. Total spending on the NHS is over £160 billion, and welfare spending is over £260 billion, massively dwarfing the total amount raised by national insurance. He either does not understand that, or is irresponsibly scaremongering, because he has known for a long time that national insurance and other payments are topped up by general taxation. He should know better.

James Murray: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his mini-speech. I feel I may have touched a nerve. He talks about people being scared; yes, I think people are scared when they hear the Government making a £46 billion unfunded spending commitment and not saying how they will pay for it. When the previous Prime Minister made an unfunded tax cut commitment of a similar order of magnitude, we know what havoc that caused in the economy, and people are still paying the price in higher mortgage payments and rent payments. I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that I gave him a chance to rule out cuts to the NHS or the state pension, or tax rises elsewhere, to pay for this black hole. I am not quite sure if he did that—maybe he has not got the line from his boss in No. 10 Downing Street—but the truth is that until the Government rule those things out, people will rightly worry about the impact his unfunded commitment will have on the economy.
The pledge the hon. Gentleman was speaking about sounds like exactly the sort of pledge that the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) would approve of, because it comes to almost exactly the same amount as her Government’s unfunded tax cuts. Of course, the previous Prime Minster has been touring the TV studios and talking to newspaper journalists in recent days, saying, among other things, that people who claim that she crashed the economy are
“either very stupid or very malevolent”.
I wonder if the Minister would like to intervene to say whether he shares that view. No? He is not leaping to his feet now. I would have thought he would; I would have thought that Treasury Ministers would want to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the previous Prime Minister. Instead, with their £46 billion unfunded commitment, they seem determined to be a tribute act. Frankly, whatever the previous Prime Minister says, people across Britain know what impact her time in office is having on all of us, as we face higher mortgages and higher rents as a direct consequence of her economic recklessness.
That is the context in which we are debating this Finance Bill. The context is one of a Government who are out of time, out of ideas and out of touch with reality, and of a country that is feeling the impact of 14 years of Conservative economic failure. Even a simple clause such as clause 2, which sets the main rates of income tax, highlights the impact on ordinary people of decisions taken by this Government. Although the basic and higher rates of income tax are unchanged by this Bill at 20% and 40%, the tax burden on working people is rising as a result of the income tax personal allowance and the higher rate threshold being frozen from 2021-22 to 2027-28. Those tax thresholds would ordinarily have risen this April, but instead they are in the middle of a six-year freeze. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which I assume the Minister has respect for, these freezes will create 3.7 million extra taxpayers by 2028-29 and mean that 2.7 million more people will be paying the higher rate.
The truth is that, even taking into account any reductions to national insurance rates, the freezes in thresholds and the rises in council tax mean that by the end of the forecast period, the average family will still be £870 worse off. As the Resolution Foundation noted at the time of Budget, despite the reductions in national insurance, there will still be a net rise of £20 billion a year by 2028-29 in personal taxes. It pointed out that those over the state pension age, who do not benefit from national insurance cuts, will be particularly badly hit, and will face an average tax rise of £960 a year. The reality has been summed up by Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said following the Budget:
“This remains a parliament of record tax rises.”
That is the record of the Conservatives in government.

Luke Evans: There is a certain Leader of the Opposition who, when standing for their post, said that as part of their No. 1 pledge, which was for economic justice, they would increase income tax for the top 5% of earners and reverse corporation tax cuts. If the hon. Gentleman’s party was voted into government, would it stand by that pledge? That too would increase the tax burden significantly.

James Murray: I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s question. I can, however, respond to the general point that I think he was making. We have been very clear that this is a Parliament of record tax rises. The tax burden is set to be the highest in 70 years, and we think that the tax burden on working people should be lower. However, we would only ever support tax rises if they were responsible, and done on a basis of economic security and stability.

Luke Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Murray: I will make some progress, because I have made that point quite clearly.
The tax burden has been pushed to a record high, and we have also seen a record number of changes and U-turns on tax rates and reliefs under this Government. That applies not just to personal taxation, but to tax rates and reliefs relating to businesses. Let us consider the Chancellor’s approach to the rate of corporation tax, which the Bill sets at 25% in clause 12. In July 2022, during his leadership bid, the current Chancellor pledged to cut the headline rate of corporation tax from 19% to  15%, yet when he became Chancellor just three months later, one of his first acts was to U-turn on what he inherited and to commit to raising that tax from 19% to 25%. He has been typical of the Conservatives in lacking any certainty, predictability or consistency, and we know how damaging that is to businesses that are trying to make investment decisions.
As the shadow Chancellor set out, if we win the next general election, we will bring back certainty by capping the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate of 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. We would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness. We believe that the current rate of 25%—the lowest in the G7—strikes the right balance between what our public finances need and keeping our corporation tax competitive in the global economy. We also recognise the importance of stability and predictability in the reliefs available to businesses. We have seen a great deal of chopping and changing in capital allowances in recent years—indeed, this is a rare example of a Finance Bill from this Government that does not change the annual investment allowance or expensing regime.
We have made it clear that if we win the next general election, we will publish a road map for business taxation in our first six months in office, to give businesses the stability, predictability, and long-term plan that is so important to those making investment decisions. We have been pushing for a proper windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies operating in the North sea. The Government, despite initial opposition, U-turned on that and adopted some of our proposals with the introduction of the energy profits levy. Ahead of the general election, we have set out our plans to make the windfall tax stronger, and to raise more revenue to support our country’s energy transition, but it is also right that we give as much certainty as possible to those companies affected.

Mary Glindon: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a domestic oil and gas sector and offshore energy sector to deliver for the economy, to deliver energy security, and to bring in the investment needed for transition? After all, the North sea has powered our economy and our country for decades, and it can do so for decades to come.

James Murray: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that we offer as much certainty as possible to those companies affected. We recognise that by its very nature, the windfall tax is expected to be a one-off levy in response to extraordinary profits, and will ultimately come to an end. We have set out that if we win the next general election, the energy profits levy will end no later than the end of the next Parliament. We also fully support the energy security investment mechanism in clause 19, and the signal that it gives, which helps with investor confidence in the UK’s offshore energy sector.
We will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, and we look forward to detailed consideration of its clauses in Committee. However, the wider context in which the Bill has been published lays bare the record of the Conservatives in government. That record is one of falling living standards for people across Britian, and the highest tax burden in 70 years. It is one of economic stagnation, from a party that is out of ideas and has been unable to provide the stability that businesses need.  It is also one of recklessness with the public finances, both when the previous Prime Minister crashed the economy, and now that the current Prime Minister has made a £46 billion unfunded pledge to scrap national insurance. It is time to turn the page and turn a corner—time to give British people the chance to change our country’s Government by calling a general election.

Richard Fuller: I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I have a couple of points to make to the Minister, and a couple of responses that the shadow Minister might be interested to hear. In response to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on the loan charge, the Minister said that he was not minded to accept an amendment, but would always listen. I like the Minister. He will be aware that the loan charge has created significant concerns and problems for people. He will be aware that the loan charge policy has been in place for a long time and has not made the progress anticipated initially. May I say to him that it is time to draw a deadline on that policy and for HMRC to find a different way to provide resolution and, may I say, relief to those affected?

Sammy Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy has not only failed to bring in the revenue that the Government intended, but led to a number of people committing suicide because of the pressure put on them by HMRC?

Richard Fuller: My right hon. Friend has voiced the concern that I know will rest on the conscience of my hon. Friend the Minister, and he is right to add that. May I put a second conscientious point to the Minister—this point was also made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—which relates to the scoring for contaminated blood? That was not included in the Budget, which will have disappointed a considerable number of Members of Parliament from all parts of the House. It would be helpful if the Chancellor came forward with some view on that. Will my hon. Friend look at that?
Thirdly, will the Minister be encouraged by the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and his analysis of the charges imposed on the Treasury by the Bank of England as a result of the quantitative tightening policies? The UK’s policies on quantitative tightening are exceptional. Few other central banks—many of which indulged in the bizarre quantitative easing policy 15 years ago, after the financial crash under the last Labour Government—do it, and it is now a real charge that has real effects on the real economy in the country. The exceptional way in which we are treating quantitative tightening charges—essentially, we take them on the books, the Treasury gets charged for it, and it has to go into the scoring that the OBR and others do—does not go on in other European countries. There is discretion on how it can be put across, and in the US the charges are absorbed but the Government are not charged. That is an important policy point, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister would accept an amendment on that in Committee, although I think not.
Prosaically, or simply, HMRC has been in the headlines for not answering phone calls and for saying it would go on holiday. I am pleased that the Minister reversed that straightaway, and I know many taxpayers will be pleased about that. Many who will be looking to fill in their self-assessment forms will be surprised that they cannot download form SA100—they have to call HMRC to download a copy, whether or not they want to file it by paper. That seems a little odd, if HMRC’s phonelines are under pressure. Will the Minister, who has been responsive on points to date, look into that?
I will turn to the shadow Minister’s speech—I like him too. As he in his own mind “prepares for government”, he and his colleagues may wish to get a better grasp on reality. When he rightly talks about the importance of setting clarity for investment, it is important that those looking at investment think that those in charge of the public finances know what is going on. He talked about record tax rises under this Government. Let me ask him these questions. Did he disagree with funding of the furlough programmes? Did he disagree with the energy price support? Did he disagree with the increase in funding for the NHS? Did he disagree with record numbers of police officers? If he did not disagree with any of those, he would recognise, if he had a grasp on reality, that he would have to fund those through increased taxation or increased—[Interruption.] He has an answer, so would he like to come in? [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought he had an answer.

James Murray: The hon. Gentleman is asking me what I disagree with. I disagree with the low growth that has been true of this Government. I disagree with billions of pounds being wasted in covid fraud and in other ways by the Government. I disagree with how the Government are now overseeing the highest tax burden in 70 years and have no plan to get the economy growing. That is what I disagree with.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Member mentioned growth rates, fraud and the record tax burden. I was making a point about the record tax burden, and he cannot respond to that challenge by repeating that he is concerned about it. He talked about low growth—he should go to Germany or France, which have lower growth than the UK. He should go to the majority of G7 countries, where he will find lower growth than in the UK. He is mistaking—[Interruption.] Would he like to intervene again? No.
I am trying to be helpful, obviously. The hon. Member and the shadow Treasury team wish to be taken seriously, but he will know that the points about growth are difficult to work through, with western economies not growing as fast as they have done. The UK is growing faster on average than other countries, and he needs to give some credit for that rather than just say that low growth is the case.
More importantly, if the hon. Member and the Labour party believe in furlough, the energy price schemes, the record increase in NHS funding and more police—they supported most of those programmes—they must recognise that those must be paid for in government, and that means hard choices. What the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have done is make those hard choices. Making people feel bad about historical hard choices is not a policy for a future Government.

James Murray: We seem to be engaging in an unexpected back-and-forth. The hon. Gentleman did not mention covid fraud. As he might know, we have set out our plans for a covid corruption commissioner. Would he support that—yes or no?

Richard Fuller: Of course, everyone supports cracking down on fraud, and I would be very happy—[Interruption.] If I may, I would be happy to look at the Labour party’s specific proposals. But the hon. Member will also know that when the Labour party talks about fraud, particularly when it comes to personal protective equipment and the furlough programmes, it conflates two things. For example, with the coronavirus loan programmes, Labour is conflating moneys that have not repaid because businesses have gone bust, or because companies have not paid them back yet, with moneys that have been lost fraudulently. When I look at his proposals, I want to ensure that when Labour talks about the amounts that have been lost, they relate to actual examples of fraud and not to the ways in which, in a difficult situation where people’s businesses could have been closed, money was given out by the Treasury to others. If that is the case, I am happy to look at that.
My second point to the Opposition—before I get on to what I want to say—is that I hold no torch for the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), but when the hon. Member and his colleagues talk about crashing the economy and about people’s mortgage rates, as I think the Leader of the Opposition did at Prime Minister’s questions, may I gently urge them to look at the Bernanke review that has just been completed on Bank of England forecasting? That has a number of important points about how the Bank of England could improve its forecasting. It also compares interest rates for the seven central banks that Ben Bernanke, the former head of the US Federal Reserve, has used as his comparators—in figure 12 in the report. If the hon. Member looks at that, he will see that UK interest rates in 2019 were in the middle of the pack, UK interest rates in 2020 were in the middle of the pack, UK interest rates in 2021 were in the middle of the pack, UK interest rates in 2022 were in the middle of the pack and UK interest rates in 2023 were in the middle of the pack. UK interest rates as we enter 2024 are in the middle of the pack. It is simply not true to say that something exceptional happened to UK interest rates in any part of this Parliament. Again, if the hon. Member wishes to be taken seriously in government, he needs to get a grip on reality, not on fantasy.
I will now turn, if I may, to the things that I would like to say. [Laughter.] I did promise the Whips that I would take only 10 minutes, so I promise to take only 10 minutes, from now. Clause 12 sets the corporation tax rate. I see my friend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) in his place on the Opposition Benches. I think that both he and I are pleased that Government and Opposition Front-Bench Members have made clear their commitments for full expensing. That is particularly important to the people of Bedfordshire because there is a potential investment pending in his constituency. I would like to put on record our thanks to the two Front-Bench teams for setting out the clear future framework for how that will work.
Let me turn to income tax rates in clause 2, because  it is important to look at the history. As my hon.  Friend the Minister mentioned, the record of successive  Conservative Governments from 2010 for working people in this country is strong. He mentioned the increase in the personal allowance from £6,475 in 2010 to £12,570 this financial year. That is a 21% real increase. However, my hon. Friend did not mention the change in the minimum wage, which has gone up from £5.80 in 2010 to the living wage now of £11.44. That is a 23% real increase in wages. Higher wages for working people and lower taxes for those on lowest incomes is a very strong record.
However, my hon. Friend needs to look at the higher rate threshold, because in 2010 it was £37,400, and now it is £37,700. In today’s money, the 2010 amount would be set at £59,800. In essence, there has been a 37% decrease in earnings when people hit the higher threshold. It may not be popular politically, but economically such a substantial differentiation in the way we tax people on middle and high incomes from those on low incomes has long-term implications. After the Budget, people who have retired, have been thrifty and saved money and have a private pension now find themselves complaining that, although they are getting their increase in the basic pension—or maybe not—they are being dragged into the higher rate of taxation. Successive Conservative Governments have rewarded work—they have wanted people to work hard, be entrepreneurial, and grow their businesses and the economy—so please, can we look at the ways in which that particular threshold should change?
Quite rightly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have indicated that they wish to simplify taxation on working people. That is completely consistent with the long-run approach of the Conservatives to taxation on work. The aspiration to reduce national insurance is an excellent way of looking at that. Unlike the Opposition, I would say that there is a difficulty in politics of finding times to make quite significant changes. This may be such a time—I know that Ministers will be looking at this—partially because we have quite significant issues of overall taxation that we need to reduce, but there is the opportunity for other reasons as well. Reallocation of existing taxes is easier when the tax burden is exceptionally high. I am a low-tax Conservative. I recognise, unlike some, that when we buy things, we have to pay taxes on them. But we know that this tax rate is unusually high, and we know that we will reduce that tax burden. It is a propitious time to look at ways of reducing national insurance contributions over the next five years.
The Budget forecasts fiscal drag to be £28 billion to £33 billion per annum for the next three or four years. There is an ethical and moral case for wanting to give back more money to people by reducing national insurance contributions. However, my proposal is for the Government to consider not that national insurance reductions should go directly into pay packets, but that national insurance contributions should be added to people’s long-term savings through compulsory savings schemes. Many countries have recognised that the idea of state pensions being based upon the “never, never” is not a secure way to provide for long-term pensions. We have never really grasped the nettle in this country—Singapore did it right at the start and Australia did it in the 1990s. There is an opportunity for us to build on the work that Sir Stephen Webb did in the coalition Government through changes to national insurance contributions. That would ensure that working people are the first generation to have a truly secure pension that is their  money, where they do not have to rely on the vagaries of what a particular Chancellor of the day might do to pensions, and they would have only one tax on their wages during their career. Finagling people in other parties like to increase taxes, and having two taxes to increase gives them more flexibility. An opportunity would be provided to extend the savings stake—the way that people save for things—beyond providing for their retirement, so that they could, as they do in Singapore, put money into their first home. By looking in a new way at how we treat citizens in this country, we could move towards a savings state and away from a socialist never-never state. I leave my hon. Friend the Minister to consider those comments.

Drew Hendry: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance (No. 2) Bill because it fails to make a much-needed reduction in VAT for the hospitality and tourism sectors; fails to reintroduce tax-free shopping for international visitors; does not establish a more progressive tax system by introducing a starter rate, in line with the Scottish Government’s approach; fails to introduce measures through the tax system that would help alleviate the cost of living crisis and reduce inequality; and fails to introduce tax relief measures to enable vital high-growth sectors, like the renewable sector, to grow the economy; and because it derives from a Budget which proposed to extend the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy, threatening the security of jobs in north east Scotland and the UK’s ability to achieve net zero.”
The Bill falls woefully short of the mark. The Scottish National party has tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading because, frankly, its provisions do not rise to the immense challenges faced by our constituents. The UK Government seem to operate under the illusion that the Tory Brexit cost of living crisis has come to an end, yet the reality on the ground, in homes across Scotland and the other UK nations, tells a different story. Indeed, a UK poll out today shows that 61% of people think the UK Government are not taking the measures required for the cost of living. The bad news for Labour is that they do not believe it is proposing the right things either.
The Bill, as it stands, is a stark testament to a Government who are—as we have heard, and I agree—out of touch, out of ideas and soon to be out of office. But let us be clear that the proposals in the Bill are insufficient to support households in Scotland, who continue to bear the brunt of disastrous decisions made in Westminster. The spring Budget brought devastating cuts to Scottish capital funding, yet there remains a pervasive silence among the Westminster parties about the true scale of cuts planned over the next Parliament to meet the arbitrary fiscal rules that they are both slavishly following. I note that the Labour Front Bench said “hee-haw” about public services funding over the coming years, despite the £20 billion hole that we know will lead to further misery in public services. There are elements in the Bill, such as the marginal increase in child benefit and the limited support for the film sector, which we  can view as steps in the right direction, but they are  but drops in the ocean compared with the vast needs of our communities.
For a UK Government who claim economic competence, it is astounding how little they understand about nurturing true economic growth, or enhancing productivity. Austerity has failed. It cannot be made to work, yet those in the Labour party continue to pretend that somehow it can. We agree with the Labour party that for every £5 coming out of the Budget for people, they are paying £10 back in, so the question that Labour Members must answer is: why are they not voting against Second Reading tonight? Why are they going to, once again, sit on their hands and allow the Bill to go through? As I have said, not a word on public services. The reality is a continuing decline in disposable incomes, a shameful record on inequality—the highest in any major European country—and a GDP per capita on its longest downward trajectory since records began. Moreover, the Chancellor’s measures are predicted to have a minimal impact on economic turnaround this year and it is highly probable that the Government will have overseen the worst Parliament for income growth in recent history.
Scotland has the highest wages in the UK, according to medium gross weekly incomes, thanks to the work of the SNP Government on promoting fairer wages and leading by example. However, the powers to avoid the scale of falling real incomes resides here in Westminster. That fall is unprecedented over the past six decades. Hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland and across the nations of the UK are locked in a vicious cycle of debt, with over 300,000 having missed a debt payment in the past year alone.
According to a report published recently by the Financial Conduct Authority, 7.4 million people across the UK are
“heavily burdened by their domestic bills and credit commitments.”
In January this year, nearly 6 million UK adults reported having no disposable income at all. The ongoing cost of living crisis continues to degrade living standards, with families struggling under the weight of high food prices, exorbitant mortgage rates and escalating energy costs that are pushing more and more households into debt. Food prices are about to spike yet again, and we can put that squarely down to Brexit—the love child of the Tory right, now adopted by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. A report from Allianz Trade suggests that controls to be introduced in May will increase import costs by 10% in the first year, imposing £2 billion of extra costs on UK businesses and exacerbating the cost of living crisis.
Food prices have already risen by more than a quarter since a couple of years ago owing to existing Brexit changes. This is a turbo-boost on top of what people have been facing. Where is the help for people as food bank queues grow longer and the ability to donate to those food banks dwindles? It is non-existent. Whatever the cost to households, whoever starves, “make Brexit work” seems to be the consensus of the Westminster parties, and especially this Tory Government. Even if we put aside our squandered EU membership, the fact is that they will not implement the basic food protections that other Governments have used and we have called for. This is Westminster negligence, and a failure to observe the basic values of fairness.
Particularly pressing is the escalating crisis of fuel poverty that grips many of our communities. How can it be right, in the 21st century, that there exists an energy poll tax of standing charges? In the highlands and islands, the electricity standing charge for households—  the charge that has to be paid every single day, cold or warm—is 50% higher than it is in London. How can that be fair? Why have the UK Government sanctioned this blatant inequality? Should the Bill not be doing something to fix it?
This Bill could have provided for the scrapping of standing charges. The Government should be acting with urgency to start providing meaningful rebates for the people who live in the areas with the greatest degree of fuel poverty, including extreme fuel poverty—again, by the way, the highlands and islands. The irony is not lost on people living in an area that exports more than six times the amount of the electricity that it uses, and seeing massive tax returns going to the Chancellor’s Treasury while they suffer this injustice. At a bare minimum, the Bill could have ushered in legislation for a long overdue energy social tariff. Citizens Advice has reported a 14-fold increase in the number of clients seeking advice related to fuel poverty since 2019. The average fuel debt that clients present to Citizens Advice Scotland is now more than £2,300. That is not merely a statistic; it is a damning indictment of the current Government’s policies.

Alison Thewliss: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about fuel poverty. When I conducted a survey of Dalmarnock residents about its impact, I found that it had a hugely detrimental effect on their health and wellbeing. They could not even invite family members round because their houses were cold and they could not afford to switch the kettle on to give them a cup of tea. Pensioners were going to bed together early because they could not afford to keep the heating on. Does my hon. Friend think the Government understand the dire consequences of fuel poverty for people who are living in it?

Drew Hendry: That is a very good point. I do not think that the Government understand what happens to people. I do not think they are paying attention to medical advice, such as an article in The Lancet drawing attention to the health deprivations that result from living in fuel poverty or extreme fuel poverty. They do not understand the effect on children’s learning and wellbeing over this period, or, ironically, the higher costs to public services as a consequence of fuel poverty: for instance, people have to rely on the NHS more because of associated health conditions. The Bill is doing nothing substantial to alleviate such dire circumstances.
Before I move on to other issues, I have to ask why the Bill has no updated actions to stop companies taking advantage of the cost of living crisis. For example, the Government are aware, as is the Financial Conduct Authority, that car insurance in the UK is now 34% higher, and that younger and older drivers have seen bigger premium increases than others. The claims rate is under 18%, premiums have increased by 34%, and average premiums for some age groups have jumped by over 50%.
Surprise, surprise: drivers in Scotland are among those who have seen their premiums rise the most. This time, however, it is something they share with Londoners. The Government cannot put that down to the fact that there are different market forces and so on, because insurance premiums have risen by only 2% in France, 5% in Spain and 6% in Italy, so what is going on? The Bill contains no action on end-of-contract scams by  mobile and broadband operators either. The Government are allowing a punishing cost of living free-for-all to continue while they are distracted with feeding their culture wars and giving peerages to their pals and donors.
While the UK Government remain idle, pretending that the cost of living crisis has ended, the Scottish Government have taken proactive steps to tackle inequality and reduce child poverty. They have implemented game-changing policies such as the Scottish child payment, which has lifted 100,000 children out of fuel poverty, yet it is an uphill swim to protect families while Westminster makes the big and wrong decisions. Austerity continues to hinder necessary investments that are essential for Scotland’s burgeoning industries. Brexit has disastrously impacted on our economic activity, international standing and business confidence. Investment in the UK remains the lowest among the G7 countries.
It is common for the Tories, and indeed the Labour party, to say that there is no magic money tree when it comes to public finances, which is why they must always cut, cut, cut to follow their so-called fiscal rules. But here is the rub: the closest thing we had to a magic money tree was our EU membership, which could still be adding to our reserves. According to research by Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs, Cambridge Econometrics and others, around 5% of our annual GDP has been lost because of Brexit. If we had that back, it would generate well over £100 billion per year, generating a potential tax take for the Treasury of over £40 billion per annum. We could plug the holes—we do not have to be going through this—but that is not the path that has been decided for us. The Government have hacked the tree down to mulch, and all that they and Labour can do now is promise more cuts.
The Bill fails business and industry, too. The SNP has long advocated a £28 billion annual investment and a robust green industrial strategy to harness the full potential of the green transition. Labour used to agree—indeed, its advisers are annoyed that the party is not going forward with it—but it has reversed on that policy, as was confirmed earlier. Such an approach is essential if we want to meet our climate change targets. Indeed, as we stand at the moment—with Scotland as part of the UK—it is one of the few industries that the UK could take forward with gusto.
Despite the obvious needs, what have the UK Government done? They have only recently decided to boost funding in allocation round 6 for offshore wind projects—an effort still inefficient to meet the necessary targets. Following the failure of the fifth round of contract for difference allocations to secure any new products, it is unacceptable that the Government have failed to rectify the shortfall in deployed capacity, leaving us well behind our 21 GW target for the upcoming rounds.
This Bill is a testament to the UK Government’s ongoing failure to adequately invest in the renewables sector, thereby endangering our net zero targets, jeopardising energy security and stunting the long-term growth of Scottish communities. It is time for a drastic change, and we need a Government who will be aligned with the needs of the Scottish people in the future—an independent Scottish Government.
Where in the Bill is the action to help our tourism and hospitality industries? Selective cuts to VAT would have been a mechanism that could have been deployed to help those sectors, and it could and should have been  used to help struggling high streets and town centres. Where is the VAT-free shopping that business organisations were crying out for?

Gavin Newlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the point about VAT-free shopping. We led the charge a number of years ago on the extra-statutory concession on the removal of VAT-free shopping at airports, which is crucial to Glasgow airport in my constituency. We even managed to get the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) to vote with us on that occasion, but we have still seen no action from this Government to conclude that. That is one of the excellent points in our reasoned amendment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the SNP that will be working for the people of Scotland, not this Government?

Drew Hendry: That is exactly right. This is one of the many things that the UK Government have been called on to do, but they have been deaf to industry asking for them and often begging for help on some of these issues.
This spring Budget has introduced disastrous cuts to Scottish capital funding, with the aforementioned conspiracy of silence that the Institute for Fiscal Studies identified permeating the halls of Westminster concerning the severity of cuts planned over the next Parliament. This Government’s legacy will undoubtedly be marked by the failures of their austerity measures, the calamitous aftermath of Brexit and the misguided policies—“misguided” is a very gentle word—of Trussonomics.
Austerity under the Tories has stripped our public services to the bone, exacerbated inequality and decimated living standards. This addiction to austerity, paired with the Government’s fiscal rules, has proved utterly ineffective at reducing debt, which as a percentage of GDP has tripled in the past 15 years. The House of Commons Library has revealed that the Scottish block grant is set to fall to its lowest-ever level as a percentage of UK Government spending in the history of devolution. Between 2023 and 2025, Scottish capital funding from the UK Parliament is projected to fall by 16.1% in real terms. These Tory cuts continue to wreak havoc across all areas of the UK, with councils across England on the brink of bankruptcy and many already in special measures.
Regrettably, austerity will not end with the demise of the Tory party, as the Labour party is also committed to these same spending plans and fiscal rules. Both the Tories and Labour are engaged in that conspiracy of silence. They have had the opportunity to talk about the level of austerity necessary, in their view, over the next Parliament, but their silence threatens to cripple the already underfunded public services across the UK. With an estimated further £20 billion of cuts needed, by their calculations, over the next Parliament, it is imperative that both Westminster parties come clean ahead of the general election about the level of austerity they intend to impose on Scotland and the rest of the UK. The public have a right to know the extent to which these parties plan to decimate our public services, should they come to office, and to be told explicitly which Departments will suffer the most severe funding cuts. We know that they are both in favour of increasing the privatisation of the NHS to facilitate their plans. Let’s hear the rest.
All we have here today is a zombie Bill from a zombie Government at the fag end of a zombie Parliament, with activity in this Chamber at record lows. The Chancellor’s recent spending plans not only cut funding in Scotland but extended taxes on Scotland’s natural resources, which, as we heard earlier from across the Chamber, have been funding the UK’s economy for so many years. The Government are offering little to stimulate growth in the Scottish economy, and it is abundantly clear that neither of the Westminster parties possesses the ambition required to invest adequately in our economy and reduce inequality.
In Scotland, the SNP is supporting people through the cost of living crisis by freezing council tax, which is already lower by hundreds of pounds a year than in the rest of the UK; by using progressive taxation to ensure that the majority still pay less income tax and the minority who can afford it pay a little more; by supporting working people; by ensuring a strike-free NHS with better-paid nurses and doctors, and committing to keep it in public hands, just like ScotRail, Scottish Water and more; and by helping families with 1,140 hours of free childcare, no tuition fees for students, and much more.
In Westminster, we have been given Brexit, a loss of more than £100 billion to the economy, a reduction in the available and skilled workforce, more than £100 billion of fraud and waste, ballooning and unfair electricity charges, higher fuel debt, higher food prices, higher mortgages, higher rent, higher insurance costs, and a betrayal over the £28 billion a year needed for the just transition to renewables while our natural resources are exploited to the hilt. Our ability to build new things such as hospitals and more has been sabotaged by enormous cuts to the budget for Scotland and more pressure on services to come.
Barnett consequentials are just that—consequentials of decisions in this place. They have consequences, and Scotland sees that. Scotland needs the powers to introduce our own comprehensive industrial strategy, invest robustly in high-growth industry, and effectively reduce poverty. The only path forward for Scotland is to have a Government who truly plan to fix the economy and tackle inequality, and that is through an independent Government in Scotland. I am delighted to have moved our reasoned amendment.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. When I got my copy of the Bill from the Vote Office, I was a bit worried that the middle 500 pages or so had been missed out. We are used to these Bills being somewhat thicker than this.
I am slightly nervous, Minister, that at this rate the Indians might catch up with us on the length of our tax codes. I hope that a large Finance Bill will be ready this autumn so that we can keep our lead. There are some potentially complicated rules coming, including the new nom-dom rules. We could also base the new inheritance tax on residency rather than domicile, and we also face the question of how on earth we will define “household” for the purposes of the high income child benefit charge? There probably is some meaty stuff to come, but it is fair to say that this Bill does not generate substantial excitement.
There is always a risk with reasoned amendments to a Finance Bill. If we voted for the SNP’s reasoned amendment, we would not get any income tax this year, which would probably do quite a bit of damage to public services—though imagine that might be popular with a few people.
I am slightly intrigued by the fact that, at a time when we are really struggling for tax revenues and to balance the books, anyone would prioritise reducing the price of a Rolex for very rich tourists. That is effectively what reintroducing tax-free shopping does: it saves a lot of money for very expensive tourist purchases. I have never been convinced of the attractions of reducing VAT for the tourism sector, because the problem is that it is a huge boon for hotel operators in London that has to be paid for by taxes elsewhere.

Drew Hendry: I am happy to educate the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to speak to any of the tourism organisations that have been calling for this change, he will find that it is a great way for them not only to cope with some of the increased costs they have just now, which are front-loading their business, but to encourage people to come and use their facilities. It is something that the tourism industry is very keen on, and I would be delighted to introduce the hon. Gentleman to some people who will educate him further.

Nigel Mills: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not make the case for that in his own speech, when he barely touched on this issue. The point I was trying to make was that introducing that tax reduction would be a huge benefit to London hotels, which have high occupancy rates at a very high nightly rate, but then that money would have to be raised elsewhere in the country.
One of the advantages of Brexit—the hon. Gentleman might not like this—is we are now able to do differential tax rates by region. Therefore, if we wanted a tax rate targeted at boosting tourism, we could do it on a regional basis, looking at which have the lowest occupancy rates and the lowest employment rates. It would cost far less, and the reduction could be much smaller. We could boost investment where it is needed rather than where it is not. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that looking at that would be more sensible than his proposal.
The hon. Gentleman is also criticising the lack of a starter rate. When we had a starter rate of income tax, from 1998 to 2008, it was for very low incomes. It was a 10p rate and it was charged on top of national insurance, which was also over 10% at that point. What we actually have now is income tax and national insurance starting at a much higher point. It is a 0% starter rate, which is a far better idea than introducing a new one, so I certainly will not be voting for the reasoned amendment, as it would be completely against the country’s interests.
The Minister mentioned the high-income child benefit charge. Strangely, the Bill increases the thresholds and promises a radical change at the start of the tax year after the next one, but it does not tell us what the Government are trying to achieve by that. We have rightly upped the starting point, but if we really want to go to a household calculation, either we should be very generous and have it start at £120,000, tapering up to £160,000—the equivalent of two incomes—or we risk making the situation worse by having a very big disincentive for second earners. If the new threshold were £100,000,  rather than £80,000, a household with a second earner earning only £20,000 would be brought into the charge despite not being affected by it in the current financial year. I would not want to go down that line.
There is a very real risk that what sounds like a generous idea could have a very negative impact by discouraging second earners, whom I think we want to be encouraging with our childcare and other reforms. Before the Government publish the consultation, I urge them to think carefully about where they are pitching this. Surely there must come a point at which household incomes are pitched so high that almost no one will be paying the charge. What would be the point of all the complexity, uncertainty and cost of collecting it if it does not raise any money? We might be better off putting the 45p rate of income tax up by 0.5p, which would raise the same amount of money while losing all this complexity.
I think it would be better if, in Committee, the Minister introduced an automatic increase by inflation each year. It was a terrible mistake to keep the thresholds where they were. By far the simplest change would be to inflate the thresholds each year, so that we do not drag more people into the charge. Everyone would understand their position, which would be easier than trying to work out what on earth a “household” is for the purpose of this charge.
If we asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, he would tell us that the formation and definition of households is one of the biggest areas of welfare fraud—people are pretending not to be a household to get extra benefits. It can be extremely hard to define a household and to enforce it. How much will it cost to work out who is or is not in a household? I suspect it will be so complicated to try to reintroduce a household definition within the tax regime that it never actually happens. If it does, it will probably cost more than it raises. I question whether it is sensible to retain this charge.
Turning to what is in the Bill, and given that we now have a large range of earnings, what is the Minister’s advice to people who are not sure whether they will earn more than £80,000 because they do not know what bonus they will receive in this financial year? Should they stick with the simple route, as many people have, of disclaiming child benefit so that they do not get caught by this tax at the end of the financial year, for which they need to save in case they have to pay it—it is a bit of shock when they get there—or should they go back to claiming child benefit on the off chance? Should they put the money in the bank and see whether they are entitled to it and, if it turns out that they have not earned more than £80,000, get to keep and spend some of it? We seem to have a position in which many households will not know until very late in the financial year whether they are caught by this. If they disclaim it, they will lose a benefit to which they are probably entitled; and if they do not disclaim it, they might receive a bill that they do not have the money to pay. We need some certainty on that position.

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend is making a very important point. I am also concerned about families who have stopped claiming child benefit and are no longer on the system, but who find, because of the new rules, that they are actually entitled. How can they make sure that they get the full amount of benefit to which they are entitled?

Nigel Mills: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We are in a complex position. My question to the Minister is whether we could have a more generous allowance in this financial year for retrospective claims. People have not understood this change and, if they have not already claimed, I suspect that they are already missing out on several weeks of benefits. Could we be more generous so that, if someone finds out towards the end of the tax year that their household is entitled, they can make a back claim? Child benefit is meant to help households with the extra costs of having children. There is a good reason why child benefit has been around for many decades. It would be wrong to deprive households of it because they are unsure how much they will get and do not want the uncertainty of big bill later in the year. There are ways that we could be a bit more generous in the transition; for example, we could allow people who are in that situation to make a catch-up claim later in the financial year.
With those few remarks, I happily support the Bill, and look forward to voting for it on Second Reading shortly.

Sarah Olney: After years of economic chaos, unfair tax hikes and millions of families suffering from the cost of living crisis, the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting the Bill today.
The Bill is yet more evidence that this Conservative Government have finally run out of ideas. For millions of families and pensioners facing soaring mortgage and rent payments, sky-rocketing energy bills and eye-watering food prices, the measures in the Bill will barely touch the sides. No real help with the cost of living, no plan for economic growth, no real support for our NHS and public services, and no end to this Conservative barrage of stealth taxes—is this really the best the Government have to offer? Thanks to this Government, the British public have endured the biggest fall in living standards since the 1950s. More and more people across the country are rightly saying that enough is enough. Instead of more empty promises, what they want is a general election as soon as possible, to get this tired Government out of Downing Street and our country back on track.
Recent weeks have seen desperate attempts from the Chancellor to convince people that he is cutting taxes, in a veiled attempt to deceive the British public, but everyone can see this for what it really is: a cynical deception that will be wiped out by frozen thresholds, the soaring cost of living and years of unfair Conservative tax hikes. Over this year and next, someone on average earnings will still be £383 worse off because of the Government’s freeze on the tax-free personal allowance. Despite that, the Conservatives now expect people to be grateful for their giving back just a small amount of what they have taken way. That shows that they are totally out of touch.
Meanwhile, the Government are completely failing to use their collected tax revenue in a fair way. For example, they have shown no interest in investing in the NHS. The economy cannot be fixed without fixing healthcare. We need to cut waiting times. We need to allow more of the 2.6 million people who are economically inactive due to ill health to return to work. On doorsteps across the country, people tell us time and again how they cannot get a GP appointment, expect an ambulance to  arrive on time or see an NHS dentist. But instead of properly addressing this crisis, the Chancellor merely plugged a hole that he had blown in the NHS budget in the first place.
That is why the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to deliver serious investment for our NHS, recruit more GPs, fix our cancer services, bring down waiting lists and help people get the quality care they so desperately need. Unlike this Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrats will always stand for protecting our health services. The Chancellor either does not understand the damage done by his cruel cuts to public services or just does not care.
The Bill fails to introduce a proper windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas producers. That revenue could be used to fund energy support for the most vulnerable—to double the warm home discount or launch a proper home insulation scheme. It could be used to invest in British farming and bring down food prices for the long term. The legislation also fails to reverse tax cuts for big banks, a measure that could fund support for vulnerable mortgage-holders and renters. Worst of all, the Bill and the preceding Budget take none of the vital steps we need to grow the UK economy, such as launching an industrial strategy, reforming business rates and the apprenticeship levy, or reducing trade barriers for small businesses.
The Government have not just wrecked the economy; they have abandoned any strategy or plan for growth. Their lack of joined-up thinking has dire consequences for industry. Recently, we have seen the long and proud history of train manufacturing in the north-east jeopardised, with the Hitachi rail factory in County Durham put at risk of closure due to the Government not signing off an order from FirstGroup. That jeopardises some 800 jobs. The abandonment of the industrial strategy has real consequences for people across the country.
To conclude, although the Liberal Democrats welcome some measures in this Bill, such as changes to the high-income child benefit charge and the provision of tax reliefs for the creative industries, we simply cannot support a piece of legislation that fails to propose the solutions that we need to get our economy moving. In his spring Budget, the Chancellor could have proposed a fair deal for the British people and begun stimulating economic growth. Instead, he gave us more of the same: another underwhelming set of announcements from this Conservative Government, which is out of touch, out of ideas and nearly out of time. Right across the country, voters are sick and tired of this Conservative Government and are ready to vote for change at the next general election.

Nickie Aiken: As I highlighted in my contribution to the spring Budget debate last month, I support the measures that the Government are taking to grow the economy, boost productivity and ensure long-term prosperity for families. Today, I will focus on two clauses in the Bill, which will have an extraordinarily positive impact on the art and culture sectors in the Cities of London and Westminster, as well as across the country.
First, clause 16 amends the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to permanently set the rate of credit to 45% for touring theatrical productions, and to 40% for non-touring  theatrical productions. The rates were due to taper to 30% and 35% respectively in April next year, but will now be set permanently at 40% and 45% from that date. The Bill increases the tax relief available for theatre productions.
Secondly, clause 17 increases the tax credits available for orchestral companies and also amends the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to permanently set the tax credit rate at 45%, instead of there being the taper that was planned for the end of this financial year.
The performing arts sector plays a crucial role in the economy of the west end. According to the Office for National Statistics, 8% of the UK’s arts and cultural businesses in 2023 were based in the Cities of London and Westminster. That equates to around 2,500 businesses and thousands of jobs. World-renowned venues, including the Theatre Royal, Dury Lane, the London Palladium, the Royal Opera House and the Royal Albert Hall, attract audiences from not only around the country, but across the globe. The Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre recently produced a study that underscored the importance of the theatre sector to our economy. Their research showed that UK theatres generate £2.39 billion in gross value added, supporting more than 200,000 jobs and generating a total turnover of over £4.4 billion every year. I am in no doubt that this uplift in tax credits will have a positive impact on actors, musicians, costume designers, set creators, singers and those in a whole host of other jobs that rely on a strong and prosperous performing arts sector.
As we know, the past few years have been difficult for this industry; it first dealt with the shock of the covid pandemic, which closed all shows, and then slowly emerged out of the crisis and rebuilt its businesses and audiences. This Government have worked tirelessly to support the creative sector in the Cities of London and Westminster, and I was proud to work with the performing arts sector and others, such as UKHospitality, to secure the £1.57 billion cultural recovery fund to support large and small performing arts businesses throughout the dark times of the pandemic. I learned from that experience, and the whole pandemic in general, just how connected the west end economy is. It is a jigsaw of complementary pieces: theatres, restaurants, hotels, cafés and bars. During that time, we learned that for every £1 spent in the theatre, an incredible £5 was generated for hospitality and other businesses. The tax clauses in the Bill will not only support the performing arts, but have a positive effect on the wider hospitality and leisure sectors, which will benefit the UK economy as a whole.
While I fully support the Bill and the included changes to tax relief, there is one specific issue that I wish to raise. It concerns the new definition of theatre production that was introduced in the Finance Act 2024. The Society of London Theatre, UK Theatre and theatre companies based in the two cities have told me that immersive theatre companies will now not be eligible for the relief that the Bill offers, due to the new definition of theatre production. The new, narrow definition of an audience means that immersive theatre companies such as Little Lion Entertainment, based in the west end, will be ineligible for the tax relief provided in the Bill. Little Lion Entertainment has been a recipient of theatre tax relief for the past 10 years. It employs 350 people in London and Manchester, and during its time it has welcomed more than 2 million patrons to its performances. Yet  because of the change in definition, it fears for its future and that of the entire immersive theatre industry. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider looking again at the definition of theatre production, so that companies such as Little Lion Entertainment are not excluded from the fantastic support that the Bill  will provide.
I am proud of the Government’s continued support for the performing arts in the United Kingdom. The Bill will continue ensure that our world-renowned theatres and opera productions flourish, and will safeguard them for future generations.

Peter Aldous: I am interested in clause 19, which sets out how the energy security investment mechanism will operate: the energy profits levy will cease if the six-month average prices for both oil and gas fall below certain thresholds. That provision follows on from the Chancellor’s announcement in his spring Budget that the energy profits levy would be extended to 2029, though it would be disapplied when energy prices return to normal. My interest in the issue stems from my role as a constituency MP—activity in the North sea energy sector is vital to the local economy—and from chairing the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group. I have no particular issue with the mechanisms in clause 19, though I am worried that the current short-term approach to fiscal policy for the oil and gas sector undermines other Government objectives—in particular, the objective of enhancing the UK’s energy security, which would bring new, well-paid jobs to coastal communities such as Lowestoft, and the objective of delivering our net-zero targets.
I acknowledge that the Chancellor has an unenviable role and faces a significant dilemma. He is, in many respects, between a rock and a hard place. He needs to balance the books, and to support those families who continue to struggle with the cost of living crisis. It is thus understandable that he looks to energy companies to pay more as oil and gas prices have risen. They have been at very high levels; however, it should be pointed out that they have now fallen back to long-term averages. There is a significant risk that in pursuing such a course, he could imperil the inward investment that is needed to create long-term, sustainable jobs in coastal communities for those very people who are struggling to make ends meet.
The North sea has been the UK’s economic saviour for nearly 60 years. Some might say that we are nearing the end of that particular story. That is not the case. The North sea is transitioning from being a source of fossil fuels to the long-term home of renewables. That transition needs to take place as quickly as possible, but in a smooth and seamless way. It requires a stable and long-term fiscal policy, which I am afraid we do not have at present. The decision to extend the levy for a further year was unexpected by industry and presents a significant further challenge to investor confidence.
Energy companies are making investment decisions on projects that quite often have timescales of the order of 40 to 50 years. The fact that in the UK there have been four fiscal changes in the past two years deters investment and deflects it elsewhere. Such businesses are globally footloose, and they will go to countries  where the fiscal regime is favourable and has a large degree of certainty about it. In the past, the UK has ticked that particular box, but we are not doing so at present. It should also be emphasised that, as well as operating worldwide, those businesses have interests in a wide variety of energy technologies—not just oil and gas, but the low-carbon businesses of today and tomorrow: offshore wind, hydrogen, and carbon capture, usage and storage. If they find the fiscal regime unfavourable for oil and gas, they will invariably not invest in those renewables, which are so vital for our future.
The initial feedback following last month’s Budget is that those concerns are well founded: investment decisions are being delayed and funds could well be diverted elsewhere. Offshore Energies UK, which provides the secretariat for the British offshore oil and gas industry APPG, has identified that £200 billion of investment that was awaiting the green light may not now happen. Cornwall Insight concludes that prolonging the levy
“could weaken investor confidence, at a time when the UK is seeking record levels of investment to deliver the transition to net zero.”
We are at risk of imperilling the next chapter of the North sea—an ongoing story that can not only deliver economic regeneration, but provide over the remainder of this decade 50 GW of offshore wind, 10 GW of hydrogen, and four carbon capture, usage and storage clusters, as well as supporting the home-grown oil and gas industry and helping us to meet our decommissioning commitments. In short, it could unleash an enormous amount of economic activity that can cascade right around the UK. To be fair to the Government, clause 19 does seek to address those concerns, but I urge them to map out a long-term strategy for offshore energy, building on the success of the 2021 North sea transition deal. They are now adopting a similar course in the nuclear sector. We need to get back to doing the same in the North sea.
It is appropriate to comment on the Opposition’s alternative proposal to extend the windfall tax. There is a real worry in the energy industry that that could exacerbate the worries that I have underlined. Offshore Energies UK has highlighted that those proposals could lead to the loss of 42,000 jobs and the wiping out of £26 billion-worth of economic activity. A concern that I hope the Opposition will allay is that they are looking at removing the capital and investment allowances that are vital to securing inward investment.
We are where we are, and I fear that some damage has been done. However, there is work to do to rebuild the UK’s reputation as a prime destination for investment in the energy sector, and we need to get on with that task without delay. The industry has noted the Government’s commitment to honour the sunset clause, and I urge the two Ministers on the Front Bench—my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) and for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies)—to provide the further reassurances that are needed to reinforce that message, both this afternoon in their responses and as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
The importance of ongoing and meaningful dialogue between the Government and industry cannot be overemphasised. In the period from 2012, after the last windfall tax, up to 2021, when the North sea transition  deal was agreed, that interaction was very much taking place. It has been lost over the past three very eventful years, but it needs to be restored as quickly as possible. If it is, we can still embark on a new golden era for the North sea: an era of home-grown energy transition, not an outsourced one; of reindustrialisation, not deindustrialisation; and of enhanced energy security and economic prosperity.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Tulip Siddiq: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) set out in his opening speech, this Finance Bill and last month’s Budget are nothing but the last gasps of a dying, desperate Government. Neither does anything to address 14 years of Conservative economic failure, and as always with this Government, it is working people who pay the price, because taxes are still rising. The British people, already facing the highest tax burden in 70 years, will see tax rises in every single year of the forecast period. As much as the Government try, they simply cannot hide from that record: after a decade and a half of Conservative rule, people have less money in their pockets.
Unable to defend his own Government’s record, and unable to offer any plan to get the country out of the economic mess that his party has created, this Chancellor has resorted to undeliverable promises. The Chancellor ended his Budget last month with a £46 billion unfunded tax plan to abolish national insurance, which would put our economic stability at risk. That is even bigger than the unfunded tax cuts announced by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) in her Budget, which added hundreds of pounds to people’s mortgages.
In contrast, the Labour party has consistently said that we would reduce the tax burden on families. That is why we opposed the current Prime Minister when he wanted to increase national insurance two years ago, and it is why we supported the measures announced last month to bring national insurance down by an additional 2p.
Although on the surface this Bill leaves the basic and higher rates of income tax unchanged, let us be clear: this is a Government who have raised the tax burden to record levels, and taxes are continuing to rise. Because of the tax choices that this Chancellor has made, households will be, on average, £870 worse off. His decision to freeze tax thresholds will create 3.2 million new taxpayers by 2028, and 2.6 million more people will be paying higher rates. For every £5 that the Government are giving back to families, they will be taking an average of £10 in higher taxes under their plans, and they expect the British public to thank them for it.
While we will always call out the Conservatives for pickpocketing the British taxpayer, we do welcome their recent pickpocketing of Labour policies. Labour has long argued that if people make Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here too. However, the Prime Minister himself has said that scrapping the non-dom tax status would somehow end up costing Britain money, and the Chancellor previously tried to argue that the non-dom status supports jobs and that reforming it would damage long-term growth. I am delighted to say that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor  have finally come around to the Labour party’s way of thinking, but it is not quite what it seems. I am not denying that Conservative Members have come a long way after years of opposing our plan to scrap the non-dom status, but there are still some gaping loopholes in the Government’s plans.
The discount in year 1 is unnecessary and unjustified, and particularly concerning is the loophole that will allow non-doms to exploit offshore trusts so that they can avoid inheritance tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North made clear, these loopholes must be closed. I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will commit to closing these loopholes, so I wait with bated breath to hear what he has to say on this policy. If not, will he accept that the Conservatives are once again putting the interests of non-doms before those of ordinary British taxpayers and British businesses?
Let us take corporation tax, which clause 12 sets at 25%. All this Chancellor has had to offer British businesses is uncertainty. Despite promising to cut corporation tax from 19% to 15% in his 2022 leadership bid, he has increased it from 19% to 25%. In contrast, our shadow Chancellor has committed to capping the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate for the whole of the next Parliament, and we would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness.
The Opposition will be supporting the energy security investment mechanism in clause 19 of the Bill before us, as it will help investors get the confidence they need. Likewise, we are committed both to strengthening the windfall tax to raise more revenue to support our country’s energy transition, and to giving as much certainty as possible to the companies affected. That is why our shadow Chancellor has made it clear that, under Labour, our one-off, time-limited energy profits levy will cease to apply by the end of the next Parliament.
We will not be opposing the Bill today, but we will be looking closely at the detail in the specific clauses in the coming weeks. However, let us be under no illusions: this is an exhausted and directionless Conservative Government who are out of ideas and out of time. All they have to offer are U-turns, unfunded promises and an ever-growing tax burden on working people and our constituents. In contrast, the Labour party’s offer to the country will be carefully costed and fully funded, and we will always put working people and British businesses first.
The Government have failed to reduce the tax burden, failed to boost business investment, and delivered only stagnation and chaos, whereas our economic plan is built on the pillars of stability, investment and reform: stability brought about by iron discipline, and guarded by strong fiscal rules, robust economic institutions and certainty on corporation tax; investment, working with the private sector, so that we can lead the industries of the future and make work pay; and reform, starting with our planning system, to tackle vested interests. The British people deserve better than this. The British people deserve change. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it is now time to call a general election as soon as possible.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Minister.

Gareth Davies: It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me begin by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions to the debate on this Finance Bill.
Before I address some of the specific points raised, let me briefly reflect on what this Bill is seeking to achieve. It is a Bill for a Budget that rewards work, and it sends a clear message to working people across the country that we support them. We want their work to pay and we want them to have more money in their pocket at the end of the working day. We want to continue to make this country a great place in which to live, work and invest; and to provide our key growth industries with the support and incentives they need to continue to thrive. Taken together, these policies will drive economic growth and productivity for years to come by focusing on workforce participation and stimulating business investment.
Despite going through an incredibly difficult time these past years, with a global pandemic and a war in mainland Europe, our economy has now turned the corner. Inflation is down from its peak of 11% to 3.2%; real wages are consistently rising; and, despite high interest rates, our economy is growing, because of the action that we have taken over the past few fiscal events and the plan that we have put in place—it is always important to have a plan, Madam Deputy Speaker—and this Bill continues our work to execute that plan.
The Bill will support hard-working parents by increasing the high-income child benefit charge threshold and taper, taking 170,000 families out of paying that tax charge, and with almost half a million families gaining an average of £1,260 towards the cost of raising their children. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) made thoughtful remarks about our intention to move to a household basis. We will absolutely take those remarks on board, as he mentioned, and we will be consulting on this issue shortly and his points will also be taken on board in that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) pointed out that the Bill will encourage investment in our world-leading creative industries—a key growth sector for the UK—with a new tax relief for UK-made independent films. It will permanently increase the rates of tax reliefs for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries, backing British talent in film and on the stage, and we will always champion our creative industries, which remain the envy of the world. She raised points about specific challenges, particularly on immersive audiences. Production will qualify for theatre tax relief if the main purpose of the audience is to observe. Some level of audience participation will not necessarily disqualify a production, but it cannot be the main purpose. Further guidance will be issued by the Treasury, and I know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be happy to meet her to discuss the specific issues her constituents are facing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has been a consistent champion for the oil and gas industry, and quite right too. He acknowledged that the Bill will provide more certainty to investors in the oil and gas industry, and the finance industry that lends for  investment, by putting the energy security investment mechanism into legislation. The ESIM operates on the basic principle that it is only right that when prices of oil and gas come down to normal levels, so too should the tax on exceptional profits. That gives certainty to industry and also brings more fairness.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) made a typically constructive and, perhaps, creative speech, and made a number of points. In particular, his support for our national insurance contribution cuts was much appreciated. He is right to highlight an under-appreciated policy on auto-enrolment, which has seen 10.3 million people brought in to saving for a pension, with 86% of private pension savers now participating more than they were before. We will look closely and work with him on his specific suggestion relating to national insurance contributions to boost savings. We all want the savings culture in this country to grow and grow, and we are always open to suggestions.
The national insurance contributions had a separate Bill, but they continue to be a subject of debate in Treasury discussions. The Opposition’s suggestion that our ambition to remove the double tax on work is some kind of unfunded policy must be addressed. Let me be clear: this is an ambition; it is obviously not happening overnight. Let us look at what we have done over the past six months for hard-working people across the country: we have cut national insurance contributions by 30%, all while increasing pensions by 8.5%, and providing record funding for our NHS. Indeed, having an ambition in public policy is not new. In 2010 we set out a long-term ambition to raise the personal allowance to £10,000, which we did not just meet but exceeded, and it is now over £12,500, as acknowledged by my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley and for North East Bedfordshire.
It is important to set out a direction of travel for the British people, and to show ambition for what we want to do in government. Not only do Labour Members not have any long-term ambitions, but none of their ambitions seem to last very long. They talk about change, but the only change that the Labour party offers is a change in its own policies, week after week after week, and that’s just weak! Labour’s policies are so weak and vague that even its righteous moral compass cannot find a direction. However, there are a few glimmers of what a Labour Government might look like—what five years of hard labour might look like. For example, we know that under Labour’s embattled deputy leader and the trade unions, 70 new regulations will hamper the ability of businesses to hire, stifle their ability to grow, reduce job opportunities, and unleash waves of low-threshold, zero-warning strikes on hard-working British people. Labour calls it a new deal, but let us face it: it is a raw deal for business and workers across the country.
I have not even mentioned the things that the Labour party is doing today where it is in charge, so let us just quickly go through those: 20 mph zones, limited rates relief and longer NHS waiting lists, all in Labour-run Wales; a bankrupt council, adult social care budgets cut and council tax up by 21%, all in Labour-run Birmingham; and knife crime up, relentless National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers strikes and a cruel   ultra low emission zone tax on motorists, all in Labour-run London. The House will forgive me if I will not take lectures from the Labour party.
To conclude, we are delivering a Finance Bill that will see us move forward with the Government’s plan to support long-term growth, encouraging people into work, boosting investment and ensuring that hard-working taxpayers keep as much of their money as possible. We on the Government Benches choose aspiration over envy and ambition over declinism. For those reasons and more, I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 296.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a
Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 49.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Finance (No. 2) Bill:

Committal

(1) The following shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House—
(a) Clauses 1 to 4 (income tax charge and rates etc);
(b) Clauses 12 and 13 (corporation tax charge and rates etc);
(c) Clause 19 (energy security investment mechanism).
(2) The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Committee of the whole House

(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in one day.
(4) The proceedings—
(a) shall be taken on that day in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

  

  Proceedings
  Time for conclusion of proceedings


  Clauses 1 to 4; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses (income tax charge and rates etc)
  3 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.


  Clauses 12 and 13; Clause 19; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses (corporation tax charge and rates etc and energy security investment mechanism)
  6 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee etc

(5) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 23 May 2024.
(6) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
(7) When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Public Bill Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(8) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(9) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

Programming committee

(10) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading. —(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 to 13 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)

That the draft Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disapplication or Modification of Financial Regulator Rules in Individual Cases) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 26 February, be approved.

Proceeds of Crime

That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Recovery of Cryptoassets and Investigations: Codes of Practice) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Terrorism Act 2000 (Certain Information Orders: Code of Practice) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.

Retained EU Law Reform

That the draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 26 February, be approved.

Plant Health

That the draft Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.

Income Tax

That the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (2024 UEFA Champions League Final) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 26 February, be approved.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Alison Thewliss: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry. I note the letter from the Paymaster General today, but people have waited far too long for justice and this inquiry, and need to be compensated. It has been a year  since the recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff, and people need to have the money they are entitled to.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow Central,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002952]

Sharon Hodgson: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, due to the Budget failing to provide for any allocation of money to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. The final compensation recommendations were made by Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood public inquiry, in April 2023. The House voted in December 2023 to establish a body to pay compensation in an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has made very clear throughout her campaign, with two victims of this scandal dying each week while waiting for the Government to act, justice delayed is justice denied.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Washington and Sunderland West,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002955]

Midge Hall Railway Station

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Katherine Fletcher: May I say how grateful I am to the Speaker for granting this important debate, and to the Minister for responding? The topic is a train station called Midge Hall, which is to the west of Leyland. It provided a much-loved local service, but unfortunately, during the Beeching cuts, it was designated for closure. What happens now for the people of west Leyland is that a train comes along to Midge Hall station and stops, and the passengers peer out at the platform, but they cannot get off, and no one can get on. This has been described as nonsense, and the people of Leyland and the broader communities of South Ribble have said to me on many occasions that they agree.
Let me examine, with the House’s permission, why I am trying to fix this situation. Midge Hall was originally closed back in the ’60s. It sits on a line that goes directly between Preston and Liverpool. I was not around on this planet to understand the rationale for the closure at the time, but there has subsequently been a significant development, in the form of a trading estate not too far a walk from the station. There has also recently been a wonderful brownfield development of homes on the old Leyland test track, where the heavy goods vehicles used to be whizzed around in circles. You can imagine the size of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Houses are being built there, and the ultimate plan is to have up to 2,000 people living there, within a very short walk of Midge Hall station.
Let me return to the train station. Why does the train stop, allowing passengers to peer out at a platform they can only dream of using, then carry on? It is because the line switches to a single track there, so the train has to stop for the exchange of a safety token. This means that there is already dwell time at the station, because the trains already stop there. We are looking for an opportunity for investment in new station platform access and buildings. There is a precedent. Recently, near Liverpool, a train station of a similar age and ilk was reopened and connected to the Merseyrail network. The station works cost approximately £13 million, so even with some cost inflation, thanks to Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, we are not talking about an unachievable amount of money to allow passengers to get on and off a train where it already stops to exchange a token.
Let me talk about the broader issues, because it is not just that nonsense that I am trying to right. There are businesses within walking distance that are not served well by public transport, and approximately 1 km south of the site, within easy access of an active travel walkway and cycleway, the Government have a planning application for a third prison at Ulnes Walton. That decision is with the planning inspector, who, extraordinarily, reopened the planning inquiry just to focus on the issues of transport and infrastructure, and the servicing of the new prison. I politely suggest to the Minister, and Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, that reopening Midge Hall station will be important in addressing some of the issues that are being considered by the Planning Inspectorate, given the station’s proximity to this new development site.
But that is not all. I am a Conservative and a realist; I understand that we need to use taxpayers’ money well. The issue is not just use of the existing train and platform. There is an opportunity to make the Preston-to-Liverpool train service zing even more. As the Minister well knows—he is a dedicated and passionate advocate of the railways—when Merseyrail was created, it made a decision to have trains running on a third rail, an electric rail that runs alongside the track and supplies electricity to the trains. The point where Merseyrail turns into Northern Rail—where Liverpool turns into Lancashire—is at Ormskirk, which is a wonderful town. The line that the trains use stops at Ormskirk, because buffers have been put up. Those buffers are purely administrative; they demarcate the point to which Northern trains run the service, and from which Merseyrail trains run the service. Anybody using the line from stations in my patch—from Croston or Rufford, for example—who wants to go to Liverpool gets the train to Ormskirk, stops, gets out, toddles down the platform, past the set of buffers, waits for the Merseyrail train to come, then gets on that and continues their journey to Liverpool.
Previously, with the technology available, it was expensive to try to run trains directly from Liverpool to Preston because of the question of how we would supply electricity to the trains. Installing the third-rail infrastructure is expensive; given the need to store overhead electricity, it is not a cheap job. Here, the miracles of modern science and wonderful engineers in the UK and around the world come to the rescue, with the recent innovation of battery-powered trains. Merseyrail is already starting to run battery-powered trains to solve problems like this one. When the third rail ends, trains continue their journey on standard rails, with no additional electricity needed. They go to their station, come back, pick up the third rail and their charge, and carry on.
My argument to this House, and to the Minister, is that removing the buffers at Ormskirk and installing battery trains on the line will improve the service, allowing for a direct connection from Leyland, Lostock Hall, Preston, Croston, Rufford, Ormskirk and the stations beyond to Preston or Liverpool. Furthermore, this innovation will improve the usage of the line, which will result in greater footfall at Midge Hall, which will further improve the case for allowing people to get the train from there.
For context, if somebody who is on the Midge Hall side of Leyland wants to get a train to Liverpool, they walk all the way across Leyland to the main Leyland station, which picks up a line that goes via Wigan, then comes in through the east of Liverpool. There is enormous support in South Ribble for a direct service between Preston and Liverpool. That would cut journey times and carbon emissions, and open up leisure opportunities involving Liverpool’s fantastic nightlife, which has been highlighted wonderfully this weekend, after the warm welcome that all Liverpudlians gave to visitors to the Grand National. All those opportunities are unlocked by infrastructure.
As I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the idea behind the northern powerhouse—a passion of many of us in this Chamber, not least you—is to grow the economics of the north of England through agglomeration economics, which is, in part, the idea that better joining up communities creates a larger spread, which allows  for economic growth. Infrastructure is the tool that connects those communities to deliver economic growth and a northern powerhouse. What is not to like?
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Katherine Fletcher: I have spoken about how trains already stop at Midge Hall station, which has a signal box and a signalman, and how passengers can see a platform but cannot get on or off. I have spoken about the opportunity to further improve the line by creating direct trains between Liverpool and Preston by removing the buffers at Ormskirk that currently prevent trains from running straight through. I have spoken about battery-powered train technology, which would allow trains to run from Ormskirk to Preston without spending enormous amounts on transport infrastructure. But there is one final part of the picture.
Rosie Cooper, the former West Lancashire MP, is wonderfully articulate about the public transport gaps in central and west Lancashire, and one more thing that Beeching removed that would make Midge Hall and the Liverpool to Preston connection sing if they were reinstated is the Burscough curves. For context, the railway line from Preston to Ormskirk and Liverpool crosses the railway line from Southport to Wigan. Historically, two curves allowed trains to go directly from Southport to Preston or Liverpool.
I note the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore). If he wanted to visit me in Croston, he would have to get on a train from Southport to Wigan, walk across to a different station in Wigan, get a train to Leyland or Preston and then get a train down on a different line. In the 21st century that feels more like a game of logic than a piece of transport infrastructure. Although I accept that is a larger task than reinvigorating an old platform or removing the administrative buffers, it would be remiss of me not to talk about it in the context of this scheme and the case for Midge Hall.
I have spoken to the stakeholders, and they all suggest that the first important step is a feasibility study. A feasibility study on reopening Midge Hall station was conducted in 2019 and showed a potential issue with dwell time. However, thanks to this Conservative Government, we have replaced the hated Pacer trains, which took a long time to stop and a long time to start. There is a case for looking again at the opportunities for reopening the station without affecting the timetable.
I was with Network Rail executives at the Midge Hall site on Friday, and they had no objections in principle to the scheme. They could see the support for the railway, with two packed carriages heading down for ladies day at the grand national.
Will the Minister consider doing a feasibility study? Will he consider finding the funding to open Midge Hall, and to supporting us to do so? Will he help me to work with both Northern Rail and Merseyrail to get rid of the buffers at Ormskirk and to introduce a battery train service to reinvigorate the line and the broader region? And does he consider reopening the Burscough curves  to be feasible? Although that is separate from the two issues I have raised today, it is an important part of improving rail infrastructure across west and central Lancashire.

Damien Moore: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) for all her efforts to improve rail connectivity in the areas mentioned in the debate. It is great to have her as my constituency neighbour, working really hard on this issue, which is important to our constituents for all the reasons she highlighted. She has continually campaigned on Midge Hall railway station since she was first elected, and she is not letting her constituents down today.
Connectivity between regions is as important as connectivity within regions. Liverpool is in Merseyside and Preston is in Lancashire. We thank the Department for Transport for the extra funding going to both areas—they are getting about half a billion pounds to spend from the money that would have been spent on HS2. The temptation is always to spend such funding in a single area, but connectivity between the areas is important because of all the economic activity that goes on between them. That should be further enhanced by people being able to move between the areas by an easy train journey, rather than a complicated journey that they would be less likely to make.
Connectivity is also important because we have an education triangle in the area and people living within it find it hard to get around it. There are universities at both ends of it, which people should be able to get to easily. However, people living in the middle of the area find it incredibly difficult to get to a mainline station, so they make car journeys rather than take the train. That is a retrograde step when we think about our carbon footprint.
We are working on the issue. There are a huge number of stakeholders in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, including businesses and those in the education sector. The Ormskirk, Preston and Southport Travellers’ Association, which is one of the rail passenger forums, has continued to support our efforts in making the connections that are incredibly important to our constituents.
I thank the Department for Transport for its efforts in prioritising regional connectivity, but connections between regions might need a ministerial steer. When people in the affected communities think about their journey to work, college or university, they do not think about who their political representative is; they just know the journey is difficult and want someone to step in to resolve the problem. My hon. Friend and I are doing everything we can to resolve that problem for them. It is a really important time to seize the opportunity to improve the quality of the life for our constituents. I know my constituents in Southport want to see these improvements, as do my hon. Friend’s constituents in South Ribble.
I am sure the Minister is aware that we will continue to campaign for these concerns to be resolved until we see a feasibility study that will, I am sure, unlock these projects and make them a reality, making life easier for our constituents. I hope the Minister has taken that on board. We need a conversation about connectivity  between areas because of the passengers affected in those blackspots. Rather than the money being spent on great services within each area, helping connectivity between our constituencies is equally important.

Huw Merriman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) on securing this debate on the merits of reopening Midge Hall railway station and providing direct services between Liverpool and Preston. I appreciate her tireless work in campaigning for the transport needs of South Ribble and the wider region. I also give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) for the work he does in the same vein for his constituency.
My Department prioritises investments in our roads, railways and public transportation systems that meet the needs of our growing population, enhance connectivity and drive economic growth. Transportation is the lifeblood of any thriving community. It connects people to opportunities, goods to markets and services to those in need. Lancashire has seen tremendous growth and development in recent years, but with changing demands. That is why I am proud to be part of a Government behind Network North, a significant £36 billion programme of transport investment across the country. This will not only address our current challenges, but lay foundations for a sustainable, prosperous future.
Turning to the pitch for Midge Hall station, the Ormskirk-Preston branch line currently accommodates an hourly service, which is interworked with the Colne and Blackpool South services. The single-track operation is, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, token-controlled between the Midge Hall and Rufford signal boxes, meaning that trains currently stop at Midge Hall, south of Midge Hall Lane, to exchange the token with the signal box operator. Trains going southbound are required to stop at the token exchange point and receive the physical token, or hand it over if they are going northbound. The complete process from the closure of the Midge Hall Lane level crossing to the reopening of the crossing takes approximately two minutes for a northbound train and three minutes for a southbound train, with the train dwelling for between seven and 10 seconds. My hon. Friend mentioned that trains therefore stop at Midge Hall for the token exchange, but there are currently no platform facilities to allow passengers to alight.
How can we help, as we have been asked by my hon. Friend? On 26 February we announced allocations for the £4.7 billion local transport fund for local authorities in the north and midlands outside of city regions. This investment will deliver an unprecedented long-term funding uplift and is the first transport investment of its kind for these areas. This fund will empower local leaders to support the transport projects that matter most to their communities, helping create jobs, grow the economy and level up the country. Of course, we will need the support and co-operation of local communities to make this a success. Hon. Members should let their voices be heard, champion the improvements their constituents are calling for, and work with their local authorities to turn this vision into reality.
I am sure that my hon Friend welcomed the news that Lancashire County Council has been allocated £494 million from this local transport fund, to be paid over seven years,  starting next year. Local transport authorities have the freedom to choose from a range of projects, such as building new roads, installing or expanding tram lines, or improving train stations. We will shortly publish advice for local authorities to help them make the most of this opportunity.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently met the leaders of Lancashire County Council to discuss a number of local transport schemes, including the reinstatement of the Burscough curves, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) has championed. Indeed, I believe that he has met his local transport authority to the same end.
The Secretary of State stressed that these projects—the projects that we have heard about from my hon. Friends—could benefit from the local transport fund, but it will be for the council to determine whether it is prioritised for investment. We have written to each local authority, making it clear that they will be expected to consult local MPs—such as the champions we have heard from today—as they develop their plans for spending their LTF allocation. I encourage my hon. Friends to work closely with the council and advocate for the work needed at Midge Hall and the Burscough curves. I know that they are looking to me to play the lead in making the case with them. I am very happy to do so and to help sell the case that they have made so eloquently this evening.
On the second point from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, about extending train services beyond electrified routes, I agree that new technologies have the potential to decarbonise the rail network while unlocking additional destinations, bringing environmental and service benefits to passengers and local communities. To help deliver the Government’s net zero commitment, we will electrify additional lines and deploy alternative traction technologies, such as battery, as she mentioned, where it makes operational and economic sense. The Government are supporting the development of battery and hydrogen technology in rail through innovation funding and research. This includes work on safety and wider issues that will have to be considered before rolling out this technology more widely.
Since the start of 2019, my Department has provided around £4.75 million in funding through its first-of-a-kind competitions, which are run by Innovate UK, to help decarbonise the railway. That includes £750,000 to facilitate trials of the UK’s first hydrogen-powered train, which was showcased at COP26. Earlier today, the Minister for technology and decarbonisation, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), launched the latest round of transport research and innovation grants, offering organisations and academics the chance to win their share of a £1.3 million fund to seek solutions to some of transport’s greatest challenges.
My Department has also helped to get innovations off the ground by supporting trials, including approximately £2.15 million of rail network enhancement pipeline funding for the UK’s first fast-charging, battery-only train. Remarkably, a recent test train travelled a record-breaking 86 miles on battery power alone. We hope to see the first scheduled passenger service later this year. It is that type of technology, which we are investing in, that will allow us to reach our 2040 target to take all diesel trains off the line, and will be the type of solution that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble has rightly called for.
I was pleased to see that some of those new technologies are already being deployed in the area. Headbolt Lane station, which the Secretary of State opened last year,  is the first station to benefit from battery technology  on the new class 777 trains, removing the need to extend the third rail beyond the existing Kirkby station. Of course, the matter of further extension of the Merseyrail services, either over the Burscough curves or from Ormskirk towards Preston, is a local one. Merseyrail is a devolved concession, with key strategic decisions made at a local level by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. It is right that local leaders, not Ministers in Whitehall, decide whether such projects are the best way to meet local needs. It is that ethos—more power and more investment in local hands—that is driving the Government’s new approach to transport, and that has seen us double the Liverpool city region’s sustainable transport settlement to £1.6 billion.
I close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble for securing the debate, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Southport. I assure them both that I take on board their points about local public transport needs. The fund is made available, including for business cases, for projects such as those we have heard championed this evening. I want to see those projects being invested in, so I have great hope and optimism that we can assist my hon. Friends with their campaigns. I assure them both that my door is open to them to discuss wider transport opportunities that will benefit their constituents, and I will do what I can to help sell the case for their rail projects.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.